P. S. MISHRA, C. J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that a piece of land was assigned to one Muni Reddy on 12-6-1959 under S. O. No. 15 of the Board of Revenue Standing Orders and a patta in Form - D for the said purpose was issued. The appellant herein, which is a Co-operative Milk Producers Union, approached the State Government for certain extent of land for the purpose of expanding its activities, to be specific - to establish an additional milk processing plant (Dairy) at Tirupathi. The government for the said purpose decided to resume lands assigned to several persons including Muni Reddy. The respondent - writ petitioner, Smt. C. Rajamma, however, objected to the resumption of land and claimed that she was the daughter-in-law of the assignee, she had perfected her title by prescription and also by continuous possession and that in any case she was entitled to compensation. The Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the appellate authority, however, decided against her. Respondent - Rajamma filed the writ petition questioning the resumption of land.

( 3 ) LEARNED single Judge has stated in his judgment, "a short but an important question of law of general importance which arises for consideration and resolution in these three writ petitions is that whether it is permissible in law for the governmental authorities to resume the lands granted to the landless poor persons in Form d patta (Appendix-V) under Standing Order No. 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders for the purpose of allotting the same to a Co-operative Society for establishing an additional Milk processing Plant (Dairy) by virtue of power reserved for them either under condition 17 of the Conditions of the said Form d patta or under Section 4 (1)the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. "

( 4 ) THE Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, however, is not relevant for the instant appeal. The same, if at all, had some importance, it was for the purposes, of the petitions of C. Chandrasekhara reddy alias Chandra Reddy and Smt. Chandraiahgari Gurramma and Smt. Chandraiahgari Chandramma, whose petitions are also disposed of by the learned single Judge by a common judgment with the case of Smt C. Rajamma. In the case of Rajamma, however, the land is sought to be resumed by virtue of the power reserved under Condition No. 17of d Form patta. It is not in dispute that Form d patta contained clear stipulations that land assigned would be heritable, but not alienable, would be brought under direct cultivation within three years from the date of the order and would not be leased out in any manner. . . . . . . . . . . . for breach of all or any of the conditions of the assignment, the government would be at liberty to resume the land without compensation and in the event of cancellation of assignment, either suo motu or on appeal or on revision, the assignee would not be entitled to any compensation for any improvement that he might have made to the land. The important conditions, however, Condition Nos. 17,18 and 19, are as follows:"17. In the event of the land being required for a project or any other public purpose, the land will be resumed and no compensation shall be paid to the assignee. The decision of the Government or other authority empowered by them in this behalf shall be final on the question, whether the purpose for which the land is to be resumed is a public purpose or not. 18. In the event of resumption of land assigned at market value the purchase money or such share of it, as it proportionate to the area resumed will be repaid. 19. The Government will not however be liable to pay compensation for any improvements which may have been effected on the land before such resumption. "

( 5 ) THERE is nothing in the judgmennt of the learned single Judge from which it can be inferred that the purpose for w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document