The court ruled that the resumption of land assigned to an Ex-serviceman was invalid due to lack of evidence and failure to provide a hearing, affirming the rights of Ex-servicemen regarding land assignment.

The Court made the following Common order:

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

The petitioner herein, who is an Ex-serviceman had been assigned Ac.2.53 cents of land in Sy.No.54/6 of Ganapavaram village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District.

2. In the year 2015, the petitioner had approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.19185 of 2015, contending that the Revenue Authorities were seeking to dispossess him from his land and for a direction to the Revenue Authorities not to dispossess him from the said land as he had been assigned this land by the Government itself. The petitioner also stated that he had already given a representation, on 11.05.2015, to the Mandal Revenue Officer which was not considered and sought for a direction for consideration of the said representation. It appears that an interlocutory order, dated 29.06.2015 was passed, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the above land exceptby following due process of law.This writ petition is still pending and is being disposed of, by way of this common order.

3. The respondents, despite the orders of the Court sought to dispossess the petitioner on account of which the petitioner moved the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of C.C.No.1737 of 2015. The said Contempt Case is also beingdisposed of, by way of this common order.

4. The Tahsildar had thereafter initiated proceedings for resumption of the land, on the ground that the petitioner was not cultivating the said land and was not residing in the same village. It appears that the said land was utilized for the purposes of excavation of a tank, under the Neeru-Chettu programme, sponsored by the State Government.

5. In any event, the Tahsildar, after holding that notice could not be served on the petitioner personally due and served notice by affixing the same on the land. Thereafter, he had passed orders of resumption, dated 22.09.2015.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of resumption, the petitioner had initially approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.41565 of 2017, for payment of compensation or in the alternative for allotment of comparable land in the vicinity of the existing land. Subsequently, the prayer in the Writ Petition was amended to include prayer for setting aside the impugned proceedings of 22.09.2015.

7. It appears that an order of injunction was granted in W.P.No.41565 of 2017, dated 02.01.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed C.C.No.3426 of 2018 on the ground that the said interim order, dated 02.01.2018, had been violated.

8. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was assigned the aforesaid Ac.2.53 cents of land on the ground that he was an Ex-serviceman. In such a case, the normal conditions of non-alienation etc., applicable in a DKT patta would not apply to the petitioner. Further, the order of resumption had been passed on the ground that he was not cultivating the land and was not available in the village. He also contends that the order of resumption was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to him and without serving notice prior to the passing of the impugned order.

9. Sri N. Subba Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the respondent-authorities having highhandedly taken over the land and after having excavated a tank in the land have come up with the order of resumption on grounds which are not tenable. He contends that this was done solely to get out of the liability of payment of compensation or allotment of comparable land.

10. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the entire order of resumption itself is invalid and consequently the petitioner would have to be compensated for the acquisition of his land, even if it is under a resumption order. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Larger Bench of the ers