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

2007 Supreme(AP) 285

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
Kishan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Special Commissioner - Respondent
Decided On : 03/13/2007
Case No : Writ Petition No. 25747 of 1997

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:K. Raghuveer Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Assignment.

Headnote:

Andhra pradesh (telangana area) Land and Revenue Act – Section 2, 58, 166, 172 – Loan rules, 1950 – Laoni rules, 1347 – Rules, 1961 - Assignment of land - Grant of layout - Continuous possession and enjoyment – Brief facts of case are that petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring situated in government, after collecting market value, granted patta and subsequently assigned land to him and since then he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of it. most of the conditions of the patta are applicable to landless poor persons, who are assigned lands free of cost, but the petitioner was assigned the land on payment of fixed market value. when the petitioner applied to local gram for grant of layout respondent-revenue divisional officer, without reference to any provisions of the andhra pradesh land and revenue act passed an order cancelling the assignment of land. against this order, when the petitioner preferred an appeal, the 2nd respondent-joint collector without considering it in proper perspective, passed an order confirming order of 3rd respondent – aggrieved by order petitioner filed a statutory revision under section 166 of act before 1st respondent-special commissioner, who, by the impugned order dismissed revision petition vacating the stay order granted earlier – held, however sub-collector seems to say that patta certificate has a condition containing a clause forbidding alienation – reddy has argued that these general clauses on a printed form which is of multi-purpose applicability cannot be read to have application to a case like this inclined to agree with the learned counsel had not lost his land by reason of the project he would have unfettered right to alienate his original lands – It must be held that his right of alienation will attach itself to lands given to him in lieu of lost lands from above-noted principle this court is of view that the provisions of a.p. assigned lands act have no application whatsoever to the case of the petitioner herein who is assigned project-affected land on payment of market value – Hence 1st respondent-special commissioner that petitioner infringed the conditions of patta by alienating the land and not bringing it to cultivation within a period of three years from the date of assignment is baseless and illegal moreover no rule under a.p. project-affected land assignment rules, 1961 contemplates cancellation of assignment against alienation of project-affected lands – at most provision under rule 6 of = a.p. project-affected land assignment rules says that the assignment of project-affected lands shall be subject to the condition that government may resume if they are required for project works only, provided, however that in event of resumption market value if any collected from the assignee shall be refunded to him but no compensation shall be payable to him for any improvement that might have been made by him to land – writ petition is allowed.

Judgment :-

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the order, dated 4.1.1997 passed by the 1st respondent-Special Commissioner, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently set aside the same.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.1.10 guntas in S.No.92 situated in Mamidipally village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. The Government, after collecting market value, granted patta and subsequently assigned the land to him in the year 1980 and since then he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of it. Most of the conditions of the patta are applicable to the landless poor persons, who are assigned lands free of cost, but the petitioner was assigned the land on payment of fixed market value. When the petitioner applied to local Gram Panchayat for grant of layout, the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, without reference to any provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land and Revenue Act (for brevity “the Act”) passed an order dated 27.7.1991 cancelling the assignment of the land. Against this order, when the petitioner preferred an appeal, the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, without considering it in proper perspective, passed an order dated 7.1.1993 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the order dated 7.1.1993, the petitioner filed a statutory revision under Section 166(B) of the Act before the 1st respondent-Special Commissioner, who, by the impugned order, dated 4.1.1997, dismissed the revision petition vacating the stay order granted earlier.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the format prescribed by the Government in respect of assignment of lands is in accordance with the Laoni Rules, 1950, but not specially meant for persons, who are assigned project-affected lands. The land assigned to the petitioner is a project-affected land and none of the conditions incorporated in the proceedings D.Dis.No.B3/5662/80, dated 18.10.1980 apply to him except Condition Nos.16 and 17, which specifically reveal that project-affected lands shall be assigned on payment of land value and the grantee shall not accrue full title to the land until the entire amount is paid and in fact, the petitioner has paid the entire amount determined by the Board of Revenue. He has further contended that the conditions laid down under A.P. Project-Affected Land Assignment Rules, 1961 do not reveal anywhere about cancellation of pattas. Hence, the order, dated 4.1.1997 passed by the 1st respondent-Special Commissioner is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

The learned Government Pleader for Assignment has contended that the petitioner, who is the assignee, did not bring the land under cultivation within a period of three years from the date of assignment, but intended to sell it away. The petitioner paid only Rs.500/-, which was charged to persons, who were assigned project-affected lands, but did not pay conditional payment i.e. market value of Rs.500/- per acre as per G.O.Ms.No.185 dated 25.2.1969 under Nizamsagar Project, and thus, he has contravened the conditions laid down in the Proceedings (patta) dated 18.10.1980 issued by the Tahsildar, Armoor. She has further contended that the procedure adopted and the format prescribed by the Government for the purpose of assigning lands to the public are meant for all categories of persons under Laoni or Special Laoni Rules and also to persons, whose lands are affected by virtue of any project.

For the purpose of determining whether the land, which was assigned to the petitioner, is a project-affected land and the cancellation of his patta by the 1st respondent is sustainable or not, this Court feels it expedient to examine various rules framed under law.

Loani Rules, 1950,

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 172 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F., the Government is pleased to make the following Rules:-

1.























































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 Back to top