The main legal point established in the judgment is that the resumption of land assigned to the Appellants violated their fundamental rights under Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The protection under Article 31C did not apply as the resumption order was not based on any law.

JUDGMENT :

[Surepalli Nanda, J.]

1. Heard Mr. S.Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the Respondents.

2. This Writ Appeal has been preferred assailing the legality and validity of the Order dt. 15-02-2007 passed by the Learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.2903/2007 filed by the Appellants herein.

3. Appellants herein in the present Writ Appeal had filed W.P.No.2903 of 2007 seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the impugned order bearing No.B/1580/2006-7, dt. 23-09-2006 seeking to resume the land in Sy.No.439/31 admeasuring Ac.1.08gts.situated at Chintakunta Village, Karimnagar as arbitrary, illegal and to set aside the same.

4. Order impugned in W.P.No.2903/2007 reads as under :

ORDER :

In the ref.1st cited, an extent of Ac.1.08 gts., of land in Sy.No.439/31, situated at Chintakunta Village, Karimnagar Mandal, was assigned to one Sri Kavvampally Durgaiah, S/o. Sailoo, R/o. Chintakunta Village for the purpose of agriculture, subject to certain conditions. In the ref. 2nd cited, a show cause notice was issued to Kavvampally Bhoodamma, W/o. Ganga Ram and Kavvampally Agamma, W/o. Durgaiah, who are the successors to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice as to why the land in assigned to them will not be acquired for the public purpose i.e., for allotment of house sites to the poor as per the condition No.15 stipulated in ‘B’ Form Patta granted. In response to the above Notice through Ref. 3 & 4 they have submitted replies in writing stating that except the above land they have no other lands and if the Government resume the land, they will loose their livelihood.

2. The above replies have been examined sympathetically. But, as the land is required for the public purpose i.e., for providing house sites to the poor people, the Government issued orders for taking over the lands. If it is decided that, as per the Orders issued by the Hon’ble High Court in the ref. 5th cited and also the Government Orders in ref. 6th cited, necessary exgratia/compensation (market value and 30% solatium) and also for the trees and other constructions if existing on the land will also be paid suitably.

3. Therefore, it is decided to take over the land after the spot inspection for public purpose i.e., for providing house sites to the poor.

4. In view of the reasons explained above and as per the assignment rules, the assignment patta is cancelled and orders issued directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Karimnagar No.1 to take over the land under Panchanama.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants mainly contends as follows :

i. The Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that an extent of Ac.1.08 gts., of land in Sy.No.439/31 situated in Chintakunta Village, Karimnagar Mandal, was assigned to one Sri KavvampalliDurgaiah, S/o. Sailoo, R/o. Chintakunta Village for the purpose of agriculture subject to certain conditions vide Orders No.A3/5976/78, dt. 22-07-1958 of the Tahsildar, Karimnagar, and the original assignee and the successors had been in continuous possession of the subject lands for more than 5 decades.

ii. The Learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that the reason given in the impugned proceedings dt. 23-09-2006 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar, for resumption of Appellants land after more than 5 decades is that the subject land is being resumed for allotment of house sites to the poor as per the condition No.15 stipulated in B-Form granted to the original assignee was not at all a valid and a fair decision since the said Government decision is a malafide, biased and a unilateral decision which would eventually deprive the shelter and also livelihood to the Appellants who also belong to the poorer section of the society, affecting more than 8 families.

iii. The Learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact as borne on r