IMPORTANT POINT
The competent authority must establish jurisdictional facts before proceeding with land resumption, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, CJ.

Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Rama Rao Vudataneni, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Muralidhar Rao Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

2. This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge by which W.P.No.20488 of 2016 preferred by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the appellant has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1977 Act”).

3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in nutshell are that one Tulsi Yellaiah was the pattadar in respect of the land measuring Acs.2.12 guntas in Sy.No.88 of Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy district (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”). After the Tulsi Yellaiah’s death, the subject land devolved on his wife, namely, Tulsi Veeramma, who executed a registered General Power of Attorney on 07.10.1992 in favour of one G. Latchi Raju. The subject land was alienated by a sale deed on 09.10.1992, which was executed by the said Tulsi Veeramma. Thereafter, the subject land was sold and the sale deed was executed by late Tulsi Veeramma through her General Power of Attorney.

4. The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar (hereinafter referred to as “the competent authority”) has issued notice dated 04.07.2005 to the appellant and Tulsi Vellamma in Form-I under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 on the ground that the subject land has been transferred in contravention of the 1977 Act and sought explanation as to why they should not be evicted from the subject land.

5. The appellant thereupon filed W.P.No.17415 of 2005 in which validity of the aforesaid notice dated 04.07.2005 issued by the competent authority under the 1977 Act was challenged. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 17.08.2005 with the liberty to the appellant to submit his explanation to the notice dated 04.07.2005 as well as to seek necessary information and documents from the authorities concerned to defend himself.

6. The appellant on 24.08.2005 submitted a preliminary reply explaining his title over the subject land and requested the competent authority to issue a copy of the proceedings of patta certificate issued in favour of Tulsi Yellaiah to enable him to submit his final explanation. According to the appellant, when the respondents threatened to dispossess him, he filed W.P.No.4156 of 2006. A Bench of this Court by an order dated 06.03.2006 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition. While doing so, the Bench of this Court recorded the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that efforts are being made to trace out the original assignment file No.A3/6170/60 and necessary orders will be passed after following the due process of law.

7. Thereafter, a memo dated 24.03.2016 was issued to the appellant by which he was informed that despite a thorough search in the competent authority’s office, the assignment file has not been traced out and the copy of patta certificate has not been issued to the appellant. The appellant was required to submit his further explanation within a period of 7 days. Thereafter, by an order dated 04.04.2016, an order of resumption of the subject land was passed by the competent authority. The possession of the subject land was taken under the cover of panchanama dated 06.04.2016. According to the appellant, he continued to be in possession of the subject land.

8. Thereafter, the appellant got issued notice dated 28.05.2016 to the competent authority and thereafter filed W.P.No.20488 of 2016 in which challenge was made to the validity of the order dated 04.04.2016 resuming the subject land inter alia on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction and it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural just