The resumption of alienated lands was unjustified as the petitioner had utilized the land according to the conditions of alienation, and procedural fairness was not observed.

ORDER:

Heard Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Bhagat Singh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. Challenging the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 27.01.2020 resuming the lands alienated in favour of the petitioner on the ground of violation of conditions of alienation viz., non utilization of alienated lands in terms of G.O.Ms.No.57 Revenue (ASSN-I) , dated 16.02.2015 and on the pretext of utilizing the lands for providing house site pattas of the scheme viz.,‘Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki Illu’.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner has applied to the 2^nd respondent for alienation of lands on payment of market value for extracting gravel boulders and to establish a crushing and screening plant for the purpose of building road from Bangalore and Hyderabad, from the point of Garladinne to Gollapalli Village. The 2^ndrespondent, accordingly after obtaining reports from the RDO and the Tahsildar accorded permission to the Tahsildar for giving advance possession of the lands in an extent of Ac.9.84 cents in Sy.Nos.503/2, 503/5, 503/12, 503/16, 503/15, 503/19, 503/14, 503/18, 504/5, 504/6, 503/1 and 503/4 of Alamur Village, Ananthapuram Mandal and District on payment of market value of Rs.16,500/- per acre to the petitioner. The Tahsildar was requested to collect the market value before giving possession of the lands and submit alienation proposals. Accordingly, Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 20.03.2008 reported to the Collector, the receipt of the payment and further informed that the possession was also given to the applicant. Thereafter, the empowered committee in its meeting has recommended for enhancement of market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. For approval of the cabinet sub-committee, the issue was kept pending.

4. However, the 2^nd respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner, referring to the proceedings of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P, asked the petitioner to show cause as to why the alienation proposals made in her favour should not be cancelled. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted her reply stating that in compliance to the alienation made, she had used the land for extraction of gravel for laying road, and she further submitted that the gravel is still being used for maintenance and upkeep of the said road. She further submitted that since the Collector has referred the matter to high power committee, and the committee has fixed the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- without finalizing the same, issuing show cause notice by the RDO proposing to withdraw the alienation, is not justifiable. It is contended that the 2^nd respondent has however, passed the impugned order without referring to the objections filed by the petitioner.

5. It is further contended by the petitioner that after issuance of show cause notice without passing any orders on the said show cause notice, the respondents have forcibly attempted to take possession of the land at that stage, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.3552/2020 dated 11.02.2020. After filing of the said writ petition, the respondents have affixed the impugned orders at the premises of the petitioner.

6. The 2^nd respondent filed his counter stating that the Joint Collector has conducted inspection and reported that the subject lands are in possession of the petitioner and the land is quarried long back and not levelled up and the same is kept un utilized, and if suitable machinery is engaged, the land can be utilized for issuance of house site pattas under the scheme viz., “Navaratnalu-Pedalandiriki Illu”. Since the Government has authorized the District Collectors to resume the utilized lands that were alienated in favour of private individuals on the grounds of violation of conditions of alienation or non utilization of alienated lands. It is further stated that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.57 Revenue (ASSN-I) , dated 16.02.2015, the