THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.19743 OF 2018

ORDER:

1. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.4 in passing the order in Proc.B/8024/16, dated 30.11.2016 as confirmed by the respondent Nos.3 and 2 in Appeal No.D2/341/2017, order dated 06.06.2017 and Revision Case No.F2/2012/2017, order dated 31.03.2018 respectively, resuming the assigned land from the petitioner admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.671 (671/35) of Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District as arbitrary and illegal and requested to set aside the impugned orders.

2. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the sole petitioner died and his daughter is brought on record, who is petitioner No.2 herein.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Govermnet Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the life time of the petitioner he was assigned land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.671 (671/35) of Suryapet Village and Mandal, vide Patta No.B4/262/1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’). The petitioner was also issued Pattadar Pass Book in the year 1994 vide title deed No.17528 and 1(b) Adangal. While it being so, the petitioner received a notice on 04.10.2016 as to why the land cannot be resumed in view of keeping the land fallow. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply on 20.11.2016. However, the respondent No.4, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, only basing on the alleged report of the Mandal Girdawar, which was obtained behind and back of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 passed impugned order on 30.11.2016 resuming the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal vide Appeal No.D2/341/2017 on the file of respondent No.3 and the said appeal was dismissed on 06.06.2017. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision before the respondent No.2 vide Revision Case No.F2/2012/2017 and the said revision was also dismissed on 31.03.2018. In view of view of the same, the present writ petition is filed.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner cultivated the subject land for the last 45 years, as such the land cannot be resumed on the vague allegation that the land kept fallow. The impugned orders were passed without considering the procedure of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act, 1977), which is a social welfare legislation.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of writ petition, the sole petitioner died and his wife died on 06.10.2019 as such the petitioner No.2, who is the sole daughter, alone is legal representative of the deceased-petitioner. Almost 13 to 15 persons, whose assigned lands in Sy.No.671 of Suryapet Revenue Village. were resumed, filed writ petitions questioning the resumption orders and obtained interim stay orders.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the pahanies for the years 1997-98 to 2013- 14, to which the respondents are referring, cannot be taken into consideration, since the assignment was done in the year 1975, much prior to the said date as such the condition of within three years from the date of assigning the land cannot be said as violated by the petitioner. The initiation of impugned action is purely with a view to avoid payment of compensation by acquiring the land and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.

8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment basing on the counter filed by the respondents would submit that the subject land was allotted to the petitioner, with a condition that the assignee or his legal heirs shall brought the same into cultivation within three (3) years from the date of assignment, but there is no evidence to show that the land was cultivate