Back
In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
S.V. BHATT, J.
M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited - Appellant
Versus
The joint Collector, Chittoor & Another – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 26585 of 2009
Decided On : 29-09-2016
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - Sections 4, 4(1), 5, 3 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 - Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Assignment - Petitioner prays for mandamus declaring the Notice bearing in Form-II and the consequential orders passed by respondent as arbitrary illegal without jurisdiction violative of principles of natural justice and are void - Respondent through proceedings and in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section of the cancelled the assignments of agriculture land and directed resumption of these lands to Government - Petitioner assails the notice issued in Form-II and the resumption orders - Point for consideration in the admitted circumstances of the case is whether in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section of the Act is a transferee of alleged assignee is entitled to Notices in Form-I and Form-II or service of notice in Form-II would suffice the requirement - Petitioner requested time for filing explanation - Letter of petitioner requesting time was acknowledged by respondent petitioner submitted explanation which was received by the respondent passed the order under Section of the Act and on affixed the order at the factory premises of the petitioner - Now in this undisputed scenario, the case of the petitioner is that respondent did not refer to the explanation dated and has arrived at a conclusion on nature of land extensively basing on the report of the Revenue Inspector - Report is submitted basing on discreet enquiries made by the Revenue Inspector - Impugned in the writ petition has not referred to revenue records to determine whether the lands are assigned lands or not - Petitioner purchased the lands from landless poor person assignees of Government land - Petitioner requested fifteen days time to file explanation and the time sought by the petitioner was over by - As no explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner another notice was issued. Similarly a remainder was sent - Petitioner - Respondent denies violation of principles of natural justice, or statutory requirement - Respondent admits that notice in Form-II alone was issued to the petitioner notice in Form-I issued to assignee of land - Respondent prays for dismissal of the writ petition – Held, Court is of the view that whenever action under Section 4 of the Act is initiated by the District Collector or authorized officer the authority is required to issue notices in Form-I and Form-II to the assignee and the transferee from the assignee - Authorities are required to have practical and realistic approach in passing order under Section 4 of the Act - With the transfer of assigned land the assignee may or may not evince interest in the enquiry conducted by the District Collector or authorized officer - Further being the person interested in the property covered by notice issued in Form-I or Form-II the transferee if heard before considering the consequences stipulated under Section 4 of the Act the same satisfies scope and purpose of special statute enacted for prohibiting transfer of assigned lands and restoring the assigned land in accordance with Section reasons point is answered in favour of petitioner and against the respondents - Consequently it is held that in an enquiry taken up under Section the District Collector or authorized officer shall issue notices in Form-I and Form-II to the transferor and transferee consider their objections and pass orders as he thinks fit and proper - Impugned notice and proceedings having regard to the above discussion and the findings recorded on Point the impugned notice and the order are set aside, matter remitted to respondent if circumstances warrant to proceed in accordance - Petition is ordered Accordingly.
1. Heard Mr. M.P. Chandramouli, for the petitioner and Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Government Pleader for Assignment (AP). The petitioner prays for mandamus declaring the Notice bearing Roc.A/99/09 dated 05.10.2009 in Form-II and the consequential orders in Roc.B/99/2009 dated 25.11.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and are void.
2. The 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 25.11.2009 and in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), cancelled the assignments of agriculture land and directed resumption of these lands to Government. The petitioner assails the notice dated 05.10.2009 issued in Form-II and the resumption orders dated 25.11.2009 as illegal and violative of statutory scheme of the Act.
3. The point for consideration in the admitted circumstances of the case, is whether in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Act, is a transferee of alleged assignee is entitled to Notices in Form-I and Form-II or service of notice in Form-II would suffice the requirement of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’). The circumstances are in a narrow compass and are not in dispute.
4. The petitioner is a sugar factory, established in the year 1997. The petitioner has established a captive power plant of 8 M.W. capacity and has obtained Distillery Licence with 120 KLPD from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner, with an intention to expand the existing operations and to start the Distillery, was interested to purchase lands in the neighbourhood of the existing company of the petitioner. The neighbouring land owners/ryots offered to sell land held by them to the existing company of petitioner. The petitioner enquired in the office of the Sub-Registrar, on the valuation and the nature of the lands viz., whether these lands agreed to be sold by neighbouring ryots can be alienated or not. According to petitioner, the purchasers stated that these lands agreed to be sold are patta lands and are not included in the list of assigned lands, communicated by respondents under Sec. 5 of the Act to Sub-Registrar. Therefore, the petitioner purchased several survey numbers and extent of land and on 05.07.2006 got the lands registered in its favour. While matters stood thus, on 19.10.2009 the petitioner received notice in Form-II dated 05.10.2009 from the 2nd respondent stating that the lands purchased by the petitioner on 05.07.2006 are assigned lands, therefore, show cause within 15 days why the petitioner should not disposed from subject land and shall not be land resumed to Government. On 02.11.2009, the petitioner requested time for filing explanation. The letter of petitioner requesting time was acknowledged by 2nd respondent on 09.11.2009. On 21.11.2009, the petitioner submitted explanation, which was received by the 2nd respondent on 23.11.2009. The 2nd respondent on 25.11.2009 passed the order under Section 4 of the Act and on 28.11.2009 affixed the order at the factory premises of the petitioner. Now in this undisputed scenario, the case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent did not refer to the explanation dated 21.11.2009 and has arrived at a conclusion on nature of land extensively basing on the report of the Revenue Inspector. The report is submitted basing on discreet enquiries made by the Revenue Inspector. The order impugned in the writ petition has not referred to revenue records to determine whether the lands are assigned lands or not. The conclusion that the subject matter of the writ petition is assigned land is based on wrong information furnished by the lower staff due to extraneous reasons. The 2nd respondent gets jurisdiction, if and if only the subject matter of enquiry is recorded as government land at any point of time in ‘A’ reg
SupremeToday
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
