SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(AP) 233

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY
AKKANA SIVUDU NAIDU - Appellant
Versus
TAHSILDAR, BOBBLLI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT - Respondent
Decided On : 08-04-77

The cancellation of a lease patta on the ground of solvency of the assignee is illegal.

Headnote:

LAND ASSIGNMENT - LEASE PATTA - CANCELLATION - GROUNDS - SOLVENCY OF ASSIGNEE - NOT A VALID GROUND - PROCEDURE FOR CANCELLATION - AFFIXTURE OF ORDER TO DWELLING HOUSE OF ASSIGNEE - NOT COMMUNICATION OF ORDER - LIMITATION FOR APPEAL - DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was granted a lease patta of Ac 2-50 cents of land in Survey no. 44 of village Gopalarayudupeta, Bobbili Taluk. The Tahsildar cancelled the lease patta on the ground that the petitioner was solvent and ineligible to possess the land on lease patta and that he had violated the condition of the lease patta by alienating a portion of his land to others.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the cancellation of the lease patta was illegal as the petitioner was a "landless poor" person as defined under the Assignment Rules and was entitled to the assignment of patta. The court also held that the affixture of the order to the dwelling house of the petitioner did not constitute communication of the order and, therefore, the period of limitation for preferring an appeal did not begin to run.

Issues: 1. Whether the cancellation of the lease patta was legal? 2. Whether the affixture of the order to the dwelling house of the petitioner constituted communication of the order?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the cancellation of the lease patta was illegal as the petitioner was a "landless poor" person as defined under the Assignment Rules and was entitled to the assignment of patta. 2. The court held that the affixture of the order to the dwelling house of the petitioner did not constitute communication of the order and, therefore, the period of limitation for preferring an appeal did not begin to run.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and restrained the respondents from evicting the petitioner from the land. The court also directed the appellate court to entertain the appeal if it is preferred within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order.

K. MADHAVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was in possession of Ac 2-50 cents of land in Survey no. 44 of village Gopalarayudupeta, Bobbili Taluk and was treated as a sivai Zamadar. The Tahsildar granted a lease of the said land during fasli 1331 on the footing that the petitioner was a "landless poor" person and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land as "sivai zamadar". A patta was also granted. The petitioner dug a well at a huge expense and has been cultivating the same ever since While so, the tahsildar issued a notice dated 2-5 1976 stating that the petitioner has an extent equal to Ac 4-00 dry land and a tiled house and therefore, he is ineligible for assignment of any Government land either on lease or on patta. It was also alleged that he had alienated a portion of his land to his brother and violated the condition of lease patta granted to him He was asked to show cause why lease patta should not be cancelled. The petitioner received the notice on 4-5-76 and requested for time for filing an explanation through his advocate. The Tahsildar promised to give time.

( 2 ) THE petitioner sent his explanation on 27 5-1976. But the Tahsildar cancelled the lease patta on 26-5-1976 on the grourd that he submitted his explanation in which he stated that he is a landless poor as defined under the Assignment Rules and entitled to the assignment of patta. He had spent a huge amount for digging a well and converting the land into a wet land. He denied that he had Ac. 4-00 of dry land. He also denied that he had alienated any portion of his land to his cousin. However, the patta was cancelled on 26-5-1976 and the land was ordered to be resumed for the reason that the petitioner was solvent and ineligible to possess the land on lease patta and that he had violated the condition of the lease patta by alienating a portion of his land to others. It is stated that this order was sought to be served on the petitioner, but as he refused to receive the copy of the order, it was affixed to the place of his residence on 30-5-1976. Although in the show cause notice it was stated that the petitioner is owning an extent which is equivalent to Ac. 4-00 of dry land, in the order cancelling the lease patta it is not specifically found that he in fact either owns or possesses any extent apart from what was assigned. All that is stated is that he is ineligible for grant of lease patta. and that he is a solvent. That is not a valid consideration to refuse a patta or cancellation of the patta already granted. Under G. O. Ms. No. 1725. dated 26-8-1959, "landless poor" is defined as one who owns not more than 2 1/2 acres of wet land or 5 acres of dry land, one acre of dry land being treated as 2 acres of wet land. There is no further stipulation that he should be otherwise poor. Any person who does not own five acres of dry land or 2 1/2 acres of wet land would be deemed to be landless poor under this g. O. which was in force on the date of the grant of the lease patta in his favour. The other requirement that the person should also be poor as per the definition of landless poor in G. O Ms. No. 725 dated 26-8-1959 was not required to be satisfied for being eligible for lease or assignment under g. O. 1725 dated 26-8-1959. Therefore, the lease patta could not have been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner is solvent. However now that the patta is cancelled by order dated 26-5-76 It was for the petitioner to prefer an appeal against that order as provided in paragraph 15 of the Boards Standing Orders "within thirty days of the date on which the original decision was pronounced or communicated". But in the instant case, it happens that the order of cancellation was pronounced by the Tahsildar by affixture. While the petitioner asked for time to submit his explanation to the show cause notice, the Tahsildar without specifically granting or refusing the time asked for and without fixing any date for hearing recorded the order of



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top