Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M. Jaya Rao, vs The Collector Magistrate, on 13 October, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.12720 of 2014
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE.
10. 13.10.2022 GRKP, J
Sri Sanjay, Learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri P.Sriram,
Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner
has drawn the attention of this Court to
the facts of the case.
2. The facts that emerge are that
the father of the Writ Petitioner, who was
in occupation of the land in 1981 was
assigned D-Form Patta in respect of
Ac.2.50 cents in R.S.Nos.30 and 31 by
Proceedings dated 22.06.1984. It is also
stated that the father of the Writ
Petitioner was paying Cistu and that a
Household Card was also issued in the
year 2016. This grant of Patta on
22.06.1984 was preceded by the
Resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated
30.01.1982, wherein Ten (10) Members
including the Sarpanch have
unanimously approved the proposal for
grant of Patta. The facts also indicate
that on account of certain Proceedings
before the Lokayuktha, the Tahsildar
2
conducted an Enquiry on 05.05.2011 and
the District Collector conducted an
Enquiry on 04.06.2011. The Report
submitted by the District Collector, after
completion of the Enquiry, is to the effect
that the grant of D-Form Patta in favour
of the father of the Writ Petitioner is
genuine in respect of Ac.2.50 cents in
R.S.Nos.30 and 31. It is also stated in the
Report that the grant of Patta was not
preceded by the change of necessary
classification of the land, and therefore,
on that ground alone, the D-Form Patta
granted in favour of the father of the Writ
Petitioner is liable to be cancelled. It is
also stated in the Report that the land i.e.
assigned to the father of the Writ
Petitioner falls under Cheruvu Poramboke
and that such land which ought not to
have been assigned to anyone has been
done so, out of a mistake.
3. Learned Counsel has cited a
decision of Larger Bench (Coram 7
Hon'ble Judges) in Land Acquisition
Officer-cum-RDO, Chevella Division,
Hyderabad and others Vs. Mekala
Pandu and others (2004 (3) CTC 19),
wherein this Court had held that upon
assignments, the ownership of the
Assignee over the land becomes absolute,
3
subject to only condition of non alienation
and that if such land is sought to be
acquired or be deprived for any other
reason other than for the breach of
condition for non alienation, the State is
legally bound to pay compensation. He
has also submitted that this Judgment
has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, when the State carried the matter
by way of a Civil Appeal.
4. In this view of the matter,
Sri Y.Subba Rao, learned Assistant
Government Pleader is requested to take
instructions from the Official Respondents
as regards the future course of action
namely, whether the Authorities could
pay the compensation or allot alternate
land in lieu of the land which is now
sought to be taken.
5. List the matter on 02.11.2022.
On the said date the Learned Counsel for
the Official Respondents shall come with
clear instructions as indicated above.
_______________
GRKP, J
GPJ
