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

2022 Supreme(AP) 168

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar S/o Korrapati Anjaneyulu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 19079 of 2017
Decided On : 23-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. P. Roy Reddy.
For the Respondent: Sri. V.V.L.N. Sarma.

Point of Law: Grounds supplemented or substituted for the grounds in the show-cause notice which were for the first time mentioned in the counter affidavit or in the order cannot be looked into by this Court and such attempt to supplement the grounds is contrary to the law.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226 - Issue writ of certiorari - Assignment of Government Land - Petitioner is a native of Village District serving in Indian Army since as soldier presently serving as Lance Naik at Armoured Brigade Signal Company APO - When petitioner was working at Corps Air Support Signal Unit Commanding Officer of Unit addressed a letter to District Officer District duly forwarding request of petitioner for assignment of Government Land - In pursuance of letter of Commanding Officer and as per B.S.O that both ex-servicemen as well as serving soldiers are entitled to claim assignment of government land - Petitioner was assigned total extent of cents of land in different survey numbers Village District name of petitioner was entered in Record of Rights and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in his favour - Petitioner is in possession of above land and online adangal also reflects his name.

Finding of the Court:

It is clear that obviously for reasons best known to revenue department more particularly Respondent No. 3 issued notices on ground that petitioner is ineligible for grant of patta - But after alleged enquiry even without giving notice to petitioner third respondent passed orders on different grounds which is impermissible under law and improved case raising several additional grounds in counter affidavit which is nothing but bad under law - Way in which revenue department passed order impugned in present writ petition and raised grounds gives scope for drawing an inference about mala-fides on part of third respondent - Soldiers in Army are working at a distant place from their families sometimes alone without any support either morally or physically, sometimes those places are not accessible to general public with a fear of insecurity and threat to the family members - That is reason for providing the policy to assign land to serving soldiers to create a secured life atleast in future while in service or after discharge from Army service.

Result: Writ Petition is allowed.

ORDER :

1. One Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of certiorari, challenging the Order in D. Dis. No. E5/1861/2016 dated 02.05.2017 passed by the third respondent-Joint Collector and to set-aside the same.

2. The facts of the case in nut-shell are that, the petitioner is a native of Konanki Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District, serving in the Indian Army since 13.09.2005 as soldier, presently serving as Lance Naik at 18 Armoured Brigade Signal Company C/o 99 APO. When the petitioner was working at 12 Corps Air Support Signal Unit, the Commanding Officer of the Unit addressed a letter dated 26.12.2009 to the District Officer, Prakasam District, duly forwarding the request of the petitioner for assignment of Government Land. In pursuance of the letter of the Commanding Officer and as per B.S.O. 15 that, both ex-servicemen as well as serving soldiers are entitled to claim assignment of government land. The petitioner was assigned total extent of Ac. 3-43 cents of land in different survey numbers in Konanki Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District, vide D.K. No. 1/1420F dated 16.06.2011. The name of the petitioner was entered in the Record of Rights (Khata No. 1995) and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in his favour. The petitioner is in possession of the above land and online adangal also reflects his name.

3. While so, one Shaik Mahaboob Basha, resident of Ongole describing him as High Court Advocate interfered with the land of this petitioner and started sending petitions and complaints. On 07.08.2014, the Commanding Officer addressed a letter to the District Collector, Prakasam, informing about the harassment being meted out by the petitioner due to acts of one Thanneru Ramanjaneyulu of Bollapally Village and also the conduct of advocate by name Shaik Mahaboob Basha. In the said letter, it was intimated that a serving soldier is also entitled for assignment of Government Land. The Commanding Officer also further addressed a letter dated 02.06.2016 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and District Authorities.

4. The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, purportedly in exercise of Revisional power conferred under BSO 15(18)(1), took up suo-motu revision in D. Dis. No. E5/1861/2016 and passed an order on 02.05.2017, cancelling the assignment granted to the petitioner and the same is impugned in the present writ petition.

5. The petitioner contended that the Revisional powers under B.S.O. 15(18)(1) can only be exercised if the Revisional authority is satisfied that there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or that the decision was grossly inequitable or that it exceeded the powers of the officer who passed it or that it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation, he may in the case of an order passed by an officer subordinate to him, set aside, cancel or in any way modify the decision.

6. In the instant case, the parameters of the aforesaid provision i.e. B.S.O.15(18)(1) are nowhere satisfied and the said provision is not at all attracted to the assignment made in his favour. The said assignment was made strictly in adherence to the procedure contemplated in BSO-15, with a recommendation from the then Commanding Officer. The matter was also placed before the Assignment Committee and the chairman of the Assignment Committee i.e. the then M.L.A. who has signed on the application and also affixed his official stamp. The request was only thereafter forwarded to the assigning authority i.e. the Tahsildar, Martur Mandal.

7. It is the specific contention that suo-motu revision was taken-up at the behest of the aforesaid advocate by name Shaik Mahaboob Basha, who is a busy body and who has nothing to do with the subject land, which was assigned to a serving soldier. Shaik Mahaboob Basha and the Revenu

                                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