Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALRAO EKBOLE, P.CHANDRA REDDY
State Of A.P. - Appellant
Versus
Gathala Abhishekam - Respondent
Decided On : 09-03-63
RESUMPTION OF LAND - ASSIGNMENT OF LAND TO HARIJANS - CONDITIONS OF ASSIGNMENT - VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS - RESUMPTION OF LAND BY GOVERNMENT - VALIDITY OF RESUMPTION - NOTICE OF RESUMPTION - NECESSITY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - CROWN GRANTS ACT, XV OF 1895 - GOVERNMENT GRANTS ACT, XV OF 1895 - SECTION 2 - SECTION 3 - STANDING ORDERS OF THE BOARD OF REVENUE - RULE 15 - RULE 38 - MADRAS COLLECTORS REGULATION, 1803 - MADRAS REGULATION VII OF 1828 - SECTION 3.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 18 are the member of Schedule castes, and that they were assigned the suit lands which are about Acs. 94-56 cents in extent situate in Doddanapudi by the Government in or about 1920 according to the plaintiffs. Defendants 3 to IS subsequently transferred the area of land which was allotted to them, to the plaintiffs. The usual pattas were granted relating to the assignments. The plaintiffs therefore claimed themselves to be in possession either as original grantees or pattadars or as transferees from the original grantees. The District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru, passed an order of resumption on 25/06/1948, According to that order, the plaintiffs were stated to have violated two conditions of the assignment: (1) that they have transferred the suit lands in favour of the 2nd defendant who does not belong to the depressed classes and (2) that the plaintiffs committed a default in the payment of cist for 1356 Fasli on the due date. It was alleged in the plaint that this order of resumption was subsequently cancelled by the Board of Revenue on 30/06/1948. Before that order was passed, the Tahsildar, Bhimavaram, submitted a report that he had taken possession of the lands on 5-7-1948. In spite of that the Board of Revenue on 27-7-1948 affirmed the previous order of cancellation and held that the re-entry was ineffective and directed the Collector to issue notice to the plaintiffs and after hearing them decide about the resumption. The plaintiffs thereupon issued notices on 6-7-1948 to the Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar asserting that they are still in possession of the land. The plaintiffs also filed an application before the Government on 5-7-1948 requesting the Government to investigate into the matter. The Government granted stay of resumption on 7-7-1948. The Collector also addressed a letter to the Plaintiffs Advocate on 12-7-1948, but as the plaintiffs could not appear before the Collector nothing was subsequently done. The Government however issued a G. O. on 3-9-1949 ratifying the resumption order passed by the Collector on 25-6-1948 and vacating the stay granted earlier. The plaintiffs therefore laid this suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are absolutely entitled to the plaint schedule lands and for the grant of a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with their possession, and for refund of the suit money,
Finding of the Court:
The resumption proceedings did not suffer from any infirmity which can vitiate the resumption. The Government will however continue to take the encroachment proceedings only in regard to those lands which they had resumed according to the resumption order of the Collector, Ex. B. 15. They have no right to take possession of any other land which they have not so resumed.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit lands were assigned to the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 3 to 18, in or about 1920, or they were granted subsequent to G. O. No. 57 dated 7-6-1922? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have failed to pay the cist for 1356 and 1357 Faslis on the prescribed dates and that they have, therefore, committed a default in the payment of land revenue? 3. Whether the plaintiffs have in any manner transferred the suit lands to the 2nd defendant? 4. Whether the Collector was competent to resume the lands? 5. Whether the plaintiffs were given any notice before resumption was made?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The assignment of the suit lands was made subsequent to G. O. No. 57 dated 7-6-1922 and that those assignments were subject to the aforesaid two conditions. 2. The resumption made by the Government was valid and the plaintiffs had sufficient notice of the resumption. 3. The Collector was competent to resume the lands.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed, judgment and decree of the learned brother, Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, J. , set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs dismissed with costs through-out.
( 2 ) THE 1st defendant raised the defence that the suit lands were not assigned to the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 18, in or about 1920, but they were granted subsequent to G. O. No- 57 dated 7/06/1922. These assignments were subject therefore to two conditions, firstly that the assignees will not be entitled to transfer in any manner the land in favour of caste Hindus and secondly that the land revenue must be paid on the due dates. In violation of any one of the two conditions the Government was entitled to resume the grant and re-enter into possession. It was alleged by the 1st defendant that the plaintiffs have violated both the conditions and that the Collector therefore rightly passed an order of resumption on 25-6-1948 in pursuance of which the Tahsildar, Bhimavaram, re-entered into possession of the suit lands. As the plaintiffs subsequently claimed themselves to be in possession, appropriate action treating the plaintiffs as encroachers was started. It was claimed by the 1st defendant that the resumption order does not suffer from any infirmity. Defendants 2 to 18 remained ex parte.
( 3 ) UPON these pleadings the Subordinate Judge, Narasapur, framed appropriate issues and a
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
