Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 10606
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
A.siddamma – Appellant
Versus
Government Of A P and Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 9254/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K SARVA BHOUMA RAO
For the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
Land assignment rights cannot be rescinded based on residency changes as such stipulations violate fundamental constitutional rights.
Headnote:(A) Article 19 (1) (d) (e) of the Constitution of India - Cancellation of land assignment patta - Grounds for cancellation cited included non-cultivation of land and non-residency in the village - Court held that absence of a stipulation forbidding residence change constituted a violation of fundamental rights, leading to unjust cancellation - Writ petition allowed with remand for reevaluation of land ownership criteria. (Paras 5-10)
(B) Assignment of land - Definition of landless poor persons - Criteria for assignment evaluated against family land ownership and conditions of assignment - Movement from village not impacting rights. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's land assignment was cancelled due to alleged conditions of land use and residency, but the court found no violation of terms that warranted such cancellation.
Findings of Court:
The first ground for cancellation do not hold, necessitating a reevaluation of whether the petitioner meets criteria for land assignment.
Issues: The legitimacy of cancellation terms and the applicant’s categorization as landless poor.
Ratio Decidendi: Fundamental rights to mobility as critical to land rights; mere non-residency fails grounds for patta cancellation.
Result: Writ Petition allowed and remanded for further assessment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner assigned land in 1988. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding grounds for cancellation of patta. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court observed the need for legal reassessment. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. conclusion on the legality of the patta cancellation. (Para 8) |
| 5. court directive for timely resolution of the matter. (Para 9 , 10) |
FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9254/2014 Between:
A.siddamma, D/o.chinnabba ...PETITIONER AND Government Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order:
The petitioner was assigned Ac.5.00 of land in Sy.No.399/2 of Chinthalapalem Village, vide DKT patta No.279/4/97, dated 26.06.1988. This patta came to be cancelled by the Tahsildar, Yerpedu, vide proceedings No.D.Dis.A/374/2007, dated 04.06.2007, on the ground that the petitioner had violated two conditions of the patta, namely, non-cultivation of the assigned land and not residing in the village. Aggreived by the said cancellation, the petitioner had filed O.S.No.336 of 2007 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikalahasthi, which came to be dismissed on 30.04.2008, permitting the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum against the cancellation proceedings. Thereafter, an appeal had been filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, who dismissed the said appeal, by an order, dated 11.11.2009. Aggreived by the same, the petitioner moved a revision petition before the Joint Collector, Chittoor. This revision was dismissed by the Joint Collector, Chittoor, by an order, dated 23.03.2010, in proceedings No.D.Dis(E4)/264/2010. Aggreived by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner again moved the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (AP). The Chief Commissioner, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application of the petitioner vide CCLA proceedings No.BCW2/264/2010, dated 08.05.2013. Aggreived by the order of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.
2. Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Chief Commissioner had held that the DKT patta of the petitioner had been cancelled on two grounds, namely, the petitioner had not brought the land into cultivation within three years and that she was not residing in the village. The learned counsel would submit that as far as the first issue is concerned, the Chief Commissioner, after considering the submissions of the petitioner, had held in favour of the petitioner and had given a finding that the petitioner was cultivating the said land. The learned counsel woud submit that the Chief Commissioner had erred in holding that the DKT patta was cancelled on account of the petitioner was not residing in the same village. The learned counsel would submit that no such condition is attached to any assignment patta and the only requirement is that the petitioner should have been residing in the village at the time of assignment. He would contend that there can be no restriction on the right of the petitioner to move about freely in India as any restriction would be a clear violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 19 (1) (d) (e) of the Constitution of India .
3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents would contend that the Joint Collector had taken into account an additional factor. He would submit that the Joint Collector had specifically held that the family of the petitioner was holding Ac.14.00 of land and that the husband of the petitioner is a medical doctor due to which the petitioner would fall outside the definition of “land less poor persons” set out under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 . The learned Assistant Governm
