THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No.4081 of 2009 Dated: 01.08.2014 Between:
Sidda Ramakrishna and others .. Petitioners and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. N. Siva Reddy Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Revenue This Court made the following:
ORDER:
The petitioners pray for Mandamus declaring the threatened action of the respondents in trying to dispossess them from an extent of Ac.10-34 cents in Sy.No.296 of Dharmavaram Village, Pathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District, pursuant to orders in L.C.C.No.924/PTP/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada, as without any authority and contrary to the procedure stipulated by law. The petitioners also complain inaction in disposing of their representation submitted in July 2007.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
This Court, through order dated 02.03.2009, protected the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land in Sy.No.296 of Dharmavaram Village.
The facts are not in dispute. An extent of Ac.10-34 cents in Sy.No.296 of Dharmavaram Village, Pathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District, is covered by declaration in L.C.C.No.924/PTP/75. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly stated that the surplus holding of the declarant, no doubt, has become final and it was found that the declarant is required to surrender the surplus holding. The petitioners are stated to be bona fide purchasers of petition land firstly unaware of the proceedings under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling On Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, and secondly in respect of the same declarant, he has unencumbered land at his disposal and if notice is issued to all the concerned, the authorities can complete the process of taking surplus land without affecting the rights of petitioners.
The learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to order dated 14.06.1989 of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada. The said order, in the opinion of this Court, was passed having regard to an eventuality of the declarant coming forward to surrender surplus land other than the land covered by Sy.No.296. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the declarant is yet to surrender the surplus land declared in L.C.C.No.924/PTP/75. For not implementing the order dated 14.06.1989, the respondents refer to order passed by this Court in a writ petition and subsequent stalemate in the matter.
Keeping in mind the nature of prayer and without an order of accepting or refusing to accept the surrender statement of the declarant or any decision on the objections of the petitioners, this Court cannot consider the grievance of the petitioners. In the counter- affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the surrender of surplus holding by the declarant will be taken up and concluded by duly following the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling On Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The said statement, in the opinion of this Court, should allay the fears of the petitioners, for the petitioners will be put on notice before surrender is completed. In the event of the respondents issuing a notice to the petitioners as well, all the objections or alternatives available to them can certainly be placed before the Primary Tribunal and it will consider and pass appropriate orders.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S.V.
BHATT 1st August, 2014 IBL