Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M Kuppamma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 December, 2023
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.570 of 2023
Between:
Smt. M. Kuppamma,
W/o.M. Gurappa Chetty,
Aged 63 years,
Occ: Fruit Vendor,
R/o.Satyavedu Village & Mandal,
Tirupati District,
Andhra Pradesh.
...Appellant
Versus
State of A.P rep.by its Principal
Secretary, Revenue Department
(Land Acquisition), Secretariat Buildings,
Amaravati, Guntur District & 6 others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant :Sri G.R. Sudhakar, learned
counsel representing Sri V. Vinod
K. Reddy.
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 : G.P for Land Acquisition
Counsel for Respondent No.5 : Sri S.S. Bhatt
Counsel for Respondent No.6 : ---
Counsel for Respondent No.7 :M/s. Anil Kumar Devalaraju
JUDGMENT
Dt:13.12.2023
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
HCJ&RRR,J
Heard Sri G.R. Sudhakar, learned counsel representing Sri V.
Vinod K. Reddy learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for
respondents 1 to 4, Sri S.S. Bhatt learned counsel, appearing for
respondent No.5 and Sri Anil Kumar Devalaraju, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.7.
2. The petitioner claiming to be the owner of Ac.1.41 cents
of land in Sy.No.1/2 and Ac.2.84 cents of land in Sy.No.2/1 of
Appaiahpalem Village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District,
approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.7245 of 2014, contending
that her land had been acquired but no compensation had been paid
to her. She also contended that there was an earlier round of
litigation in W.P.No.17238 of 2007 and W.P.No.13092 of 2008
which had stalled earlier proceedings.
3. It is the case of the appellant that she had been assigned
the aforesaid two parcels of land vide DKT patta No.96/4/86 dated
26.08.1977 and had been in enjoyment and possession of the said
land. However, no compensation or ex gratia was paid to her despite
land being taken over.
4. The official respondents filed a counter affidavit. In this
counter affidavit it was stated that the land parcel of Ac.2.84 cents
was sold by the appellant to one Smt. T. Manjula under a registered
HCJ&RRR,J
deed of sale dated 09.08.1993 and that the remaining parcel of
Ac.1.41 cents was in the possession of one Smt. K. Chengamma, who
is said to have purchased the property from one Munemma. On the
basis of these allegations it was established that the appellant had
violated the conditions of assignment and more specifically the
condition of non alienation prescribed in the standard form DKT
patta and as such, she was not entitled to any compensation.
5. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition in-
part in regards to the extent of Ac.1.42 cents of land in Sy.No.1/2
for the purpose of conducting de novo enquiry whether there was
alleged violation by the petitioner or not and refused to interfere in
relation to the non grant of ex gratia for Ac.2.84 cents of land.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has moved the
present Writ Appeal before this Court.
7. Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant disputed the findings in the report on the basis of which
the counter had been filed and contended that the appellant
remained in possession of both pieces of land. Apart from that, the
learned counsel also contended that even if there has been a
violation of the condition of non alienation, Section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,
1977 mandates that the land would have to be recovered from the
HCJ&RRR,J
purchaser and handed over to the assignee and it is only in the
event of a second violation, of the condition of non alienation, that
the land would be resumed by the Government, without any
compensation to the assignee.
8. The purchaser of this land, who sought to implead
herself in the proceedings appears to have raised a claim that she is
also a landless poor person who is entitled to the benefit of Section
4(1)(b)(i) which mandates that transferees who are landless poor
persons themselves, who had purchased the assigned land, in good
faith and for valuable consideration, on or before 29.01.2007, would
be entitled for reassignment of the said land.
9. The question of whether the appellant would be entitled
for being put back in the possession of land and consequently be
entitled to the compensation payable to assignees who are
dispossessed or whether the said compensation would have to be
paid to the purchaser of the said land or whether the State can
resume the land without any compensation on the basis of violation
of the condition of non alienation would be dependant, on findings of
fact, and it would only be appropriate that such findings are arrived
at by the primary authority i.e., Tahsildar-respondent No.4.
10. As far as the second bit of land admeasuring Ac.1.41
cents is concerned, the contention of the official respondents has
HCJ&RRR,J
been that irrespective of the question of whether the land had been
sold by the appellant or by any third party, the fact remains that the
appellant is not in possession of the land and it is being cultivated by
some other person and consequently there has been violation of the
conditions of assignment, requiring the assignee to remain in
continuous cultivation of the land.
11. The learned Single Judge, had already held that these
issues would have to be gone into by the Tahsildar and had
remanded the matter for ascertainment of facts. We do not find any
reason to interfere with this part of the order of the learned Single
Judge.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of with a
direction to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry as
to whether the appellant is entitled for reassignment of the land or
whether the purchaser is entitled to reassignment or whether the
State may resume the land on account of violation of the condition
of non alienation. The said exercise to be conducted after due notice
and opportunity being given to the appellant and the person who is
said to have purchase the land from the appellant. As far as the
remaining Ac.1.41 cents of land is concerned, the directions of the
learned Single Judge in this regard are affirmed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
HCJ&RRR,J
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
RJS
HCJ&RRR,J
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Dt: 13.12.2023
RJS
