IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SATURDAY THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION NO. 184 OF 2010
Between:
Nagothu Saadhu & Ors. … Petitioners
V/s.
The District Collector,
Visakhapatnam district & Ors. … Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Ch. Madhu Babu
Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Revenue
GP for Proh. & Excise GP for Higher Education
The court made the following : [order follows]
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION NO. 184 OF 2010 O R D E R :
The petitioners pray for mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in forcibly entering into the petitioners land admeasuring Ac:0-36 cents in survey No.195/6 at Madhuravada village of Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam district, without following the procedure stipulated by law, as illegal and unconstitutional.
2. The petitioners pray for a direction to the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings and pay compensation for the alleged deprivation of right and enjoyment of petitioners in petition land.
3. The admitted circumstances of the case are that:
The petition land was assigned in favour of Nagothu Ramulu. The petitioners claim to be his successors-in-interest. Upon the demise of assignee, the petitioners are cultivating the petition land by raising vegetable etc.
4. The grievance in the writ petition is that on 28/12/2009 the Officers of second and third respondent visited the petition land, informed the petitioners that the petition land was allotted to Excise Department and forcibly the petitioners were dispossed. In the inspection dated 28/12/2009 it is averred that the said Officers damaged vegetable garden and erected a sign board as land belonging to Excise Department. The complaint in this background is that the petitioners are not put on notice, enquiry is conducted muchless order is passed resuming petition land; secondly, if the respondents intend to take petition land for utilization for any of the public purposes the same should be after paying ex-gratia to the petitioners. As no ex-gratia is paid, the petitioners contend that forcible dispossession is illegal and unconstitutional.
5. This Court through order dated 12/1/2010 granted interim direction, restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from petition land.
6. The first and second respondent filed counter and petition to vacate the interim order dated 12/1/2010.
7. The gist of respondents reply is that assignment was with a few conditions and the important conditions are that assigned land is heritable but not alienable. The land assigned must be brought under cultivation within three years. The assignee committed breach of these conditions warranting initiation of action for cancellation of assignment of Nagothu Ramulu. Accordingly on 08/08/2005 show cause notice was issued by registered post and the assignee did not submit his explanation. The alternative plea of the respondents is that the petitioners have contravened the provisions of A.P. Assigned Land [POT] Act, 1977 assignment liable for cancellation. It is stated according to the field inspection report of incharge Mandal Revenue Officer, one Prabhu Nageswara Rao of Madhuravada village was in possession and enjoyment of petition land. Notice in Form No.II under A.P. Assigned Land [POT] Act was issued to Prabhu Nageswara Rao and resumption orders are stated to have been passed. Further on 05/1/2008 the first respondent handed over advance possession of assigned land to Prohibition and Excise Department, Visakhapatnam. On 07/01/2008 actual possession of petition land was handed over. The counter-affidavit filed by respondents is silent about the date of cancellation of assignment of original assignee. By reference to show cause notice and failure of original assignee to give explanation, the respondents claim resumption of petition land. Further the show cause notice dated 08/08/2005 dispatched on 10/08/2005 was addressed to a dead person. The counter-affidavit refers to dispatching notice by registered post with acknowledgement due. But the counter-affidavit does not further state whether the same is served on the addressee or what is the postal endorsement. It is the case of petitioners that original assignee died long ago and the orders are against dead person are void. Unless and until the respondents show that notice dated 08/08/2005 is served on the addressee the presumptuous findings cannot be accepted. The dispossession of petitioners from petition land is forcible, unauthorised and illegal.
8. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to submit representation/explanation within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order to the second respondent on the accusation in the show cause notice dated 08/08/2005 and also available alternative prayers for grznt of land or compensation for depriving possession of petition land. The second respondent considers the explanation, conducts enquiry as required by law and passes appropriate orders underlying the injustice done to petitioners appropriately within four weeks from the date of receipt of representation. Till the representation of the petitioners is disposed of, the parties are directed to maintain statusquo in all aspects as on today.
10. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
11. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
27/12/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
WRIT PETITION NO. 184 OF 2010
Circulation No. Date:27/12/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43