Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
M.radha Krishnaiah - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8277 of 2021
Decided On : 16-08-2021
ASSIGNMENT OF LAND - CANCELLATION OF PATTAS - SUO MOTO REVISION - JURISDICTION OF JOINT COLLECTOR - TIME LIMITATION - COMPENSATION UNDER RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 - FOREST LAND - NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 15 OF FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, poor people belonging to weaker sections, were allotted land by the 5th respondent and granted DKT pattas since 1981. They were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land, cultivating the same by raising different crops. Pattadar pass books were issued in their favour and their names were mutated in the revenue records. The petitioners mortgaged their respective land with the bank and obtained loans for raising commercial crops. Later, they formed a society known as ‘Kannavaram Co-operative Joint Farming Society Limited’. Respondents 6 to 8, having no manner of right to dispossess the petitioners, started interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the land. The petitioners approached the High Court and obtained an order directing the respondents not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the property. However, the respondents again started interfering and issued notice under Section 20(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, calling upon the petitioners to vacate the land as it belonged to the forest department. The petitioners challenged the notice in a writ petition, which was set aside by the High Court on the ground that the land belonged to the revenue department and the forest department had no authority to issue notice under Section 20(3) of the Forest Act. The revenue authorities issued a notice to the petitioners for cancellation of DKT pattas on the ground that the land belonged to the forest department. The 3rd respondent, Joint Collector, cancelled the DKT pattas issued in favour of the petitioners and directed the 5th respondent to make appropriate changes in the revenue records. The petitioners challenged the impugned order by filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Joint Collector is competent to exercise power under Board Standing Order No.15 (paragraph 18) of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders [BSO 15(18)] and deal with the issues regarding assignment of land. 2. The power under BSO 15(18) can be exercised at any time in view of the language employed in BSO 15(18). 3. The State is not liable to pay compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in terms of Mekala Pandu’s case (2004 Law Suit (AP) 235) when the pattas are cancelled as the pattas were issued by oversight or mistake.
Issues: 1. Whether the Joint Collector/3rd respondent is competent to exercise suo moto power of revision under BSO 15(18)? If not whether the order passed by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition is liable to be set aside on the ground of lacking authority? 2. Whether cancellation of patta approximately after 40 years invoking the power under BSO 15(18) is permissible? 3. Whether the State is liable to pay compensation as per the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 in terms of Mekala Pandu’s case and consequently the order of cancellation of pattas without payment of compensation be declared as illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Joint Collector is vested with the power to exercise power under BSO 15(18) and the power can be exercised at any time in view of the language employed in BSO 15(18). 2. The contention of the petitioners that the pattas cannot be cancelled by exercising suo moto power of revision under BSO 15(18) after lapse of approximately 40 years is without any substance. 3. The State is not liable to pay compensation as per the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 in terms of Mekala Pandu’s case (supra) as the pattas were issued by oversight.
Final Decision: Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
M. Radha Krishnaiah and three others filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned proceedings No.D.Dis(E4)/REV- ESECOLAS(APL)/48/2020 dated 02.01.2021 canceling the DKT pattas issued in favour of the petitioners vide its file No.260/4/91 dated 05.09.1983, 263/4/91 dated 17.05.1982, 260/4/91 dated 17.05.1982 and 259/4/1991 dated 17.05.1982 without any authority and on flimsy grounds while exercising power under Board Standing Order No.15 (paragraph 18) and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their land situated in Survey Nos.387/2, 387/1, 385/3 and 385/1 to an extent of Ac.3.62 cents, Ac.3.62 cents, Ac.2.90 cents and Ac.2.90 cents of land at Kannavaram village of Satyavedu Mandal of Chittoor District except in accordance with law and subject to payment of compensation under Fight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2. The petitioners are poor people belonging to the weaker sections.
3. Having considered their poverty, the 5th respondent had allotted the subject land to the petitioners and granted DKT pattas in their favour since the year 1981 onwards. Since the date of assignment of land by issuing DKT pattas, the petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land cultivating the same by raising different crops. The 5th respondent issued pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioners and their names were also mutated in the revenue records. Form 1B register, adangal pahani also disclosed the names of the petitioners being the owners and that the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property cultivating the land since the date of assignment. As such, their possession cannot be disturbed.
4. The petitioners mortgaged their respective land with the bank and obtained loans for the purpose of raising commercial crops like Cashew nut, Eucalyptus plantation in the year 1985-86. Later, the petitioners and others formed into a society known as ‘Kannavaram Co-operative Joint Farming Society Limited’ bearing registration No.812 and was registered under Section 7 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The said society was formed with an objective of undertaking joint farming of the land and allied programmes such as dairy, poultry, animal husbandry etcetera, on planning basis for increase of agricultural production.
5. Respondent Nos.6 to 8, having no manner of right to dispossess the petitioners, are unauthorisedly interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land by these petitioners. Thereupon, the petitioners approached this Court and filed WP.No.7556 of 2020. This Court, upon hearing arguments of both the counsel, directed the respondents therein not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property of these petitioners except in accordance with law. At the time of hearing of the writ petition referred above, neither the revenue department nor the forest department raised any specific issue regarding validity of the pattas. Thereafter, respondent Nos.6 to 8 started interfering again with the possession and enjoyment of these petitioners and issued notice under Section 20(3) of A.P Forest Act, 1967 [for short, ‘the Forest Act’] calling upon the petitioners to vacate the land as the land belong to forest department.
6. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners again approached this Court and filed W.P.No.18493 of 2020 and upon hearing argument, this Court had set aside the notices on the ground that the land belong to the revenue department and the forest department has no authority to issue notice under Section 20(3) of the Forest Act.
7. It is further contended that the revenue authorities are not competent
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
