THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

ORDER

Questioning the action of the respondents No.2 to 4, District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar, respectively, in not allowing the petitioner to use his land admeasuring Acs.4.14 ½ guntas in Sy.No.405/E1 of Raghunandapalem Revenue Village in Khammam Urban Mandal and District (for short ‘the subject property’) for non agricultural purpose, inspite of acquiring deemed permission for conversion from agricultural purpose to non agricultural purpose under Section 3(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, (for short ‘the Act’) consequent upon the petitioner’s application having being presented on 30.06.2014 before the respondent No.3 and kept undecided for statutory period of 60 days and till date, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property devolved from his father as an ancestral property and his name is mutated in all the Revenue records. The petitioner made an application dated 30.06.2014 to the respondent No.3, Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam Division, seeking conversion of the subject property from agricultural land into non-agricultural land duly paying requisite fee and by enclosing all the relevant documents.

In response thereto, the respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 01.07.2014 to the respondent No.4, Tahsildar, instructing to conduct an enquiry and submit a report to him. Inspite of several efforts by the petitioner, the respondents did not initiate any further action thereafter. More so, threatening the petitioner not to use the subject property for non-agricultural purpose.

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Section 3(6) of the Act, the respondent No.3 is duty bound to process the petitioner’s application and accord permission for conversion of the subject property from agriculture to non-agriculture within 60 days from the date of application. Since the respondents have failed to consider the petitioner’s application within the prescribed period of 60 days deemed permission of conversion of the subject property from agriculture to non-agriculture would be applicable. As such, the interference of the respondents and instructing the petitioner not to use the subject property for non- agricultural purpose is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the report is awaited from the respondent No.4 and prayed to pass appropriate orders.

5. At this stage, the learned counsel on either side submitted that this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the application dated 30.06.2014 stated to have been made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, if not already considered and passed any orders thereon.

6. In that view of the matter, with the consent of the learned counsel on either side, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 30.06.2014, stated to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, if not already considered and passed any orders thereon, within a period of Four (04) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the said application of the petitioner is otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is also made clear that the respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner’s subject property without following due process of law.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_____