Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.R.NAYAK
Rajamma - Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Chittoor - Respondent
Decided On : 03-24-95
ASSIGNED LANDS - RESUMPTION - POWER - GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES - CONDITION 17 OF FORM D PATTAS - SECTION 4 (1) OF ANDHRA PRADESH ASSIGNED LANDS (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFERS) ACT, 1977 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - FAIRNESS - REASONABLENESS - ARBITRARINESS - ARTICLE 14 - ARTICLE 300-A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the legality and validity of the proceedings initiated by the second respondent to resume the lands culminating in passing of the appellate order dated 1-11-1993 by the first respondent - District Collector. The petitioners sought for a declaration that the respondents 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to resume the lands without resorting to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and without payment of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
1. Condition No. 17 incorporated in Form d Patta is not a law within the meaning of that term as used in Article 300-A of the Constitution. 2. The action of the respondents 1 and 2 in seeking to resume the lands purported to be under Section 4 (1) of the Act is ultra vires of the Act itself. 3. The impugned action of the second respondent to resume the lands from the petitioners in W. P. 1861 of 1994 and W. P. 1290 of 1994 is wholly unconstitutional, being violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 4. The impugned action initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 to resume the lands without providing any compensation either for deprivation of the property or for improvements effected by the original assignees and their successors-in-title is totally arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. The impugned action is illegal and ultra vires of the Act.
Issues: 1. 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 Standingorder (S. O.) No. 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders for the purpose of allotting the same to a Cooperative 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) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977? 2. Whether the impugned action of the second respondent to resume the lands from the petitioners in W. P. 1861 of 1994 and W. P. 1290 of 1994 is wholly unconstitutional, being violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India? 3. Whether the impugned action initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 to resume the lands without providing any compensation either for deprivation of the property or for improvements effected by the original assignees and their successors-in-title is totally arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? 4. Whether the impugned action is illegal and ultra vires of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The assignments made by the Tahsildar in favour of the original assignees were on permanent basis or in other words they were permanent assignments. 2. With the assignments of the lands in favour of the original assignees derivative titles to the assigned lands stood vested in the. assignees. 3. What was vested in the assignees was a property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 4. The second respondent by virtue of a power reserved to him under an Executive Act cannot deprive the property of the petitioners. 5. The power retained by the Government under Conditions 17 and 19 incorporated in d Form Pattas are totally unreasonable, unfair, arbitrary and violative of the postulates flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. The provisions of the Act do not contemplate resumption of the lands for such purpose and therefore it should be held that the impugned action is illegal and ultra vires of the Act.
Final Decision: 1. All the three Writ Petitions W. P. No. 1861 of 1994, W. P. No. 1290 of 1994 and W. P. No. 1640 of 1994 are allowed and the entire proceedings culminating in the impugned order made by the first respondent -District Collector, dated 1-11-1993 are quashed. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 are hereby prohibited from resuming the lands in question from the petitioners in W. P. No. 1861 of 1994 and W. P. No. 1290 of 1994 either by virtue of power reserved to them in Condition No. 17of d From Pattas issued under S. O. 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders or under the provisions of the Act. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to restore the lands in question to the petitioners forthwith. 4. This order, however, shall not come in the way of the respondents 1 and 2. initiating the action to resume the lands from the petitioners in W. P. No. 1640 of 1994 under Section 4 (1) of the Act, if they have information to believe that these petitioners are not the legal heirs of the original assignee, namely, Chandraiahgari Venkata Rami Reddy and they have purchased the lands inquestion in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. 5. It is further made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the respondents 1 and 2 or the Government to initiate proceedings to acquire the lands in question of the petitioners in W. P. No. 1861 of 1994 and W. P. No. 1290 of 1994 either under the Land Acquisition Actor any other enabling provisions of any other statute if the same is required for public purpose. 6. The petitioners are entitled to the cost of writ petitions which is quantified at Rs. 3,000-00 (Rupees three thousand only) in each of the writ petition and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay them at that rate within three weeks from today. 7. Liberty is reserved for the petitioners in all these writ petitions to bring civil action against the respondents 1 and 2 before a competent Civil Court for recovery of damages for the unauthorised deprivation of their properties with effect from 18-6-1992 till restoration of the properties.
( 1 ) 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 Standingorder (S. O.) No. 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders for the purpose of allotting the same to a Cooperative 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) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, hereinafter shortly referred to as the Act . This question arises in the following facts-situation of these cases.
( 2 ) ONE Smt. C. Rajamma is the petitioner in W. P. No. 1861 of 1994; C. Chandrasekhara Reddy alias Chandra Reddy is the petitioner in W. P. No. 1290 of 1994 and Smt. Chandraiahgari Guramma and Smt. Chandraiahgari Chandramma are the petitioners in W. P. No. 1640 of 1994.
( 3 ) AC. O. 79 cents of land in Sy. No. 5/4 and Ac. 3. 52 cents of land in Sy. No. 5/8 of Avilala Village was assigned to one Muni Reddy by the erstwhile Tahsildar of Chandragiri on 12-6-1959 under S. O. 15 of the Board of Revenue Standing Orders by issuing Form d Patta. Smt. C. Rajamma claims to be the legal heir of the said Muni Reddy. Ac. O. 52 cents in Sy. No. 5/3 and Ac. 1. 77 cents in Sy. No. 5/7 of Avilala Village was assigned to one V. Muniswamy Reddy by the erstwhile Tahsildar of Chandragiri on 12-6-1959 by issuing Form d Patta. C. Chandrasekhara Reddy alias Chandra Reddy claims to be the legal heir of the said V. Muniswamy Reddy. Similarly, Ac. 0. 52 cents in Sy. No. 5/5 and Ac. 2. 22 cents in Sy. No. 5/9 of Avilala Village was assigned to one Chandraiahgari Venkata Rami Reddy by the erstwhile Tahsildar of Chandragiri on 12-6-1959 by issuing Form d Patta. Smt. Chandraiahgari Guramma and Smt. Chandraiahgari Chandramma claim that the said Chandraiahgari Venkta Rami Reddy is none other than a cousin brother of their husband. There is no dispute that all these lands in question were assigned to the afore-mentioned three persons under S. O. 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders. It is also the case of all the petitioners that even before the assignment of the lands on 12-6-1959, the lands in question were in actual, unauthorised possession and enjoyment of the afore-mentioned three persons and members of their families. In other words, the petitioners claim that the lands in question have been in actual possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title for the past more than 50 years.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners in W. P. No. 1640 of 1994, Chandraiahgari Venkata Rami Reddy does not have any direct class I legal heirs, but they claim that they are the legal heirs of the said Chandraiahgari Venkata Rami Reddy in the absence of class I heirs. The lands assigned to the said Chandraiahgari Venkata Rami Reddy were sold to the petitioners in W. P. No. 1640 of 1994 by a registered sale deed No. 2313 dated 21-4-1984.
( 5 ) ALL these assignments of the Government lands in favour of the original assignees were subject to certain conditions incorporated in Form d Pattas issued to them. Condition No. 17of the Conditions incorporated in the Form d Pattas issued to the assignees provides that 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 and 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.
( 6 ) IN all these Writ Petitions the first respondent is the District Collector of Chittoor District; the second respon
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
