THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.1240 OF 2020

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus;

1) To declare that the impugned Compt.No.E1/18772/2019, dated 02.01.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.

2) The orders passed by the 3^rd respondent vide B/2589/2017, dated 25.08.2018 and consequential orders issued by the 4^th respondent vide orders bearing No.B/5092/2018, dated 22.01.2019 are holds good.

3) Further hold that sub-section (1) of Section 3 of T.S.Assigned Land (POT) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act, 1977) is not applicable to present case.

2. Heard Sri Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel representing learned counsel on record for the petitioner, Sri H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Ajay Kumar Kulkarni, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent.

3. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that her late husband, Shivappa, being a landless poor person, made an application to the Bhoodan Yagna Board, Hyderabad, for the allotment of agricultural land for cultivation. Pursuant to this application, the Bhoodan Yagna Board allotted land measuring Acs. 3.18 guntas in Survey No. 652, situated at Ponnakal Village, Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject property’), after collecting a donation of Rs.87.50, vide proceedings No.7138 dated 18.03.1983, with a direction to the 4th respondent to issue a consequential patta to him.

4. Based on the directions of the Bhoodan Yagna Board, the 4^th respondent issued an order bearing No.D.Dis.C/1108/1985, dated 10.10.1985, mutating the name of the petitioner’s husband in the Record of Rights (ROR). The petitioner’s husband remained in possession and enjoyment of the said property by cultivating it until his death on 04.10.2007. Since then, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. However, the name of one Ghattanna was recorded as pattadar in respect of the subject property. Therefore, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar District, requesting the deletion of Kavali Ghattanna’s name from the ROR and entry of her name as pattadar. The 3^rd respondent, after issuing notices to both the petitioner and Ghattanna and examining the material placed before him, directed the 4^th respondent to delete the name of Ghattanna and enter the name of the petitioner in the ROR, vide proceedings No. B/2589/2017, dated 25.08.2018. Based on these directions, the 4th respondent deleted Ghattanna’s name and entered the petitioner’s name in the ROR, after following the due procedure established by law.

5. While things stood thus, the 5th respondent, claiming to be the legal heir of the donor of the subject land, filed a petition dated 31.08.2019 before the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector, seeking a stay of the proceedings initiated by the 3^rd respondent. Based on the said representation, the 2^nd respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 02.01.2020, wherein not only was the petition filed by the 5^th respondent dismissed, but the orders passed by the 3^rd and 4th respondents were also set aside. Further, the 2nd respondent directed the 4^th respondent to restore the earlier entries and record the subject property as "Bhoodan Sarkari," and to initiate proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1977.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, submits that the 3^rd respondent passed orders dated 25.08.2018 based on the proceedings of the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, Hyderabad, in File No.7138/1983 dated 18.03.1983, allotting the subject property in favour of the petitioner's husband. As such, no perversity can be attributed to the orders passed by the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to the directions of the 3^rd respondent,