IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.17455 of 2014 BETWEEN Vadde Gangappa.
AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. J.M NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP) MR. B. TAGORE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The relief sought for the by the petitioner is as follows:
“… this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in not canceling the fabricated assignment patta in favour of respondents 4 and 5 and not protecting the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.1205/2 of 90-Bandarlapalli Revenue village, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District by considering complaint representation dated 26-5-2014 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to protect the enjoyment of the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.1205/2 of 90-Bandarlapalli Revenue village, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District duly canceling fabricated assignment patta of the respondents 4 and 5 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”
2. The averments in the affidavit of the petitioner state that he was granted DKT patta for an extent of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.1205/2 of 90-Bandarlapalli Revenue village, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. A copy of the DKT patta is produced along with the material papers and there appears to be no controversy on the part of any of the respondents with reference to the patta granted to the petitioner. Petitioner also placed strong reliance upon the adangal copy issued on 12.05.2014 showing that the petitioner is in possession and pattadar of the land. Petitioner states that while he is in enjoyment and possession of the land, respondents 4 and 5 are interfering with the said possession and against which he has made a representation dated 26.05.2014 before the second respondent requesting him to protect the petitioner from the action of respondents 4 and 5. Petitioner also alleges that respondents 4 and 5 are making claim on the land on the basis of fabricated and bogus patta and therefore, relief is sought for action against respondents 2 and 3 in not canceling the fabricated and bogus pattas of respondents 4 and 5.
3. Initially, when the writ petition was heard on 26.06.2014, while requiring learned Government Pleader to get instructions on the action taken by the District Collector on Ex.P9, status quo, as existing, as on that day, was directed to be maintained with regard to the petitioner’s land and the said order was extended from time to time.
4. During the hearing, it was found necessary to verify the averments in para 4 of the counter affidavit of the third respondent, particularly, with regard to the averment that the assignment granted to the petitioner was cancelled on 20.09.2009. Hence, the learned Government Pleader was required to get original record, which has since been produced and verified. Petitioner also filed a reply affidavit.
5. It is evident from the file produced and the affidavit of the Tahsildar, respondent No.3, that the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.1205/2 was, undoubtedly, assigned to the petitioner in the year 1994 but later he alienated the said land in favour of respondents 4 and 5 in the year 2008. The original record also shows that on 02.08.2009 petitioner recorded his statement before the Tahsildar stating that he is not cultivating the land for three years and that respondents 4 and 5 have been cultivating, as he has sold the land to them and that the petitioner for the last three years has been living in Mysore, Karnataka State. Hence, the petitioner requested for cancellation of assignment. The villagers of the said village have also given a signed representation before the Tahsildar stating that the petitioner has sold the land to respondents 4 and 5 and they they all request for cancellation of patta of the petitioner. It also appears that thereafter notice was given on 06.09.2009 requiring the petitioner to submit explanation.
6. Mr. M. Jagannatha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 has filed a counter affidavit together with a vacate petition and contends that respondents 4 and 5 are in possession and enjoyment in their own right in terms of the DKT pattas granted to them and the allegation of the petitioner that the pattas are bogus or fabricated is absolutely incorrect as is evident from the original record, which is called for by this Court.
7. There is some controversy as to whether the notice was served on the petitioner or not, as learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that no such notice was served on the petitioner. However, the record contains an endorsement on the proceedings dated 20.09.2009 with a signature, which appears to be that of the petitioner. Subsequently, on 20.09.2009 the order of cancellation was made and the said proceedings 20.09.2009 cancels assignment granted to the petitioner on the ground that though notice was served on petitioner, he has failed to submit explanation. Subsequently, it appears that respondents 4 and 5 were granted assignment pattas to the extent of Ac.2.50 cents each vide DKT.Nos.50/1409 and 51/1409 on 20.11.2009 and since then, they are stated to be in possession.
8. The counter affidavit also accepts the entries in the revenue record, which are relied upon by the petitioner. It is stated that during computerization of village accounts in website due to software problem the entire entries found in the adangal were wrongly entered in the web land in bulk including entry in favour of the petitioner and that is relied upon by the petitioner, though he ceased to be in possession since 2009 and respondents 4 and 5 assignees, thereafter, are in possession.
9. It is obvious that petitioner has not taken any steps, even if he was aggrieved by any action on the part of the third respondent in taking action against him for resumption. Apart from that, from 2009 onwards till filing of this writ petition in 2014, for over six years, petitioner has not taken any steps nor made a complaint of dispossession. The assignment order having been cancelled against the petitioner as early as in 2009, it was open for the petitioner to have taken appropriate steps by filing an appeal or otherwise against cancellation of assignment, if he was aggrieved. Petitioner’s, further, claim that pattas of respondents 4 and 5 are fabricated and bogus is also belied by the record produced. In view of that, therefore, the primary relief sought for in the writ petition seeking respondents 2 and 3 to take action against bogus and fabricated pattas of respondents 4 and 5 does not any more stand.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has filed a representation before the District Collector under Ex.P9 on 26.05.2014 requesting him to cancel pattas granted to respondents 4 and 5. However, no orders are passed therein.
11. As mentioned above, since the pattas appear to be officially granted in favour respondents 4 and 5, as is evident from the record, the said complaint does not appear to hold any substance.
12. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner continues to be landless poor person and his case deserves to be considered for the purpose of restoration of assignment in terms of the Section 4 of the A.P.
Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) (Amendment Act), 2007, AP Act 8 of 2007.
13. Since the land in question is already assigned to respondents 4 and 5, at this distance of time and after a period of six years of cancellation of assignment of petitioner, it may not be just and proper to restore the very same land to the petitioner. However, petitioner is at liberty to make an appropriate application seeking assignment of any other alternate land, if he fits into the eligibility criteria in terms of the policy of the State and if such an application is made, the appropriate competent authority, which considers the application, shall take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders.
The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 19, 2014 DSK