Gude Venkateswarlu, Anr. vs Govt. Of A.P., Revenue Dept., ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 155 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU


                      W.P.No.1351 of 2009
O R D E R:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the

respondents.

The first petitioner who filed the writ is one Sri Gude

Venkateswarlu. His wife is the 2nd petitioner. They are

before this Court seeking protection from the alleged high

handed action of the respondents in seeking to evict them

from the land mentioned in the writ petition.

Sri C.Panini Somayaji, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the 2nd petitioner is the owner of the

property for which a notice has been given to the 1st

petitioner. The 2nd petitioner Smt. G.Sathyavathi is claiming

right and title over the property. However, he points out that

Form-1 notice was issued to the first petitioner, who is the

husband of the actual owner. It is submitted that therefore,

the initiation of the procedure itself is contrary to law. He

submits that Form-1 can only be given to the original

assignee of the land and Form-2 notice is to be given to the

subsequent purchaser from the assignee as per the POT Act,

1977 and the Rules. He points out that to the notices issued,

a reply was also given pointing out that Smt.G.Sathyavathi is

the owner of the property and that the recipient of the notice

is not the owner. In addition, he points out that other

fundamental issues are raised namely, (a) that the District

Collector cannot exercise original jurisdiction and can only

act as a revisional authority. (b) That the lands are not

Government lands or assigned lands and that they are patta

lands. (c) That the revenue authorities namely, the Mandal

Revenue Officer and others have issued pattadar pass books

and title deeds to the vendors of the petitioners. It is also

pointed out that some of the lands are allotted on payment of

market value also. Lastly, (d) an issue of limitation is raised

and a judgment of this Court dated 27.01.1986 is also

referred. Learned counsel points out that despite the above,

the order dated 30.10.2008 was passed by the Tahsildar, and

it is not an order on merits as it does not refer to the various

contentions urged. Relying upon the judgment of the learned

single Judge in the case of M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars Limited

V. The joint Collector, Chittoor1, learned counsel submits that

the impugned notices and orders are contrary to law.

Learned Government Pleader on the other hand submits

that the lands are assigned lands and that they are now

currently shown as dotted lands in the records. It is also

stated that the purchase of the property is contrary to the

conditions of the allotment and therefore, the learned

Government Pleader justifies the action taken by the

authorities. He submits that a notice was issued, the

explanation was considered and thereafter order was passed.

Therefore, he contends that there are no merits in the writ

petition. He also points out that as the address given was

incorrect, substituted service was also affected and thereafter

only the order was passed.

This Court after considering the submissions made and

the documents filed notices that petitioners are before this

Court with a specific averment that the 2nd petitioner namely,

Smt.G.Sathyavathi is the owner of the property having

acquired the same under registered sale deeds. Even if the

1 2017 (2) ALD 529

land is assigned land, then she is entitled to a notice before

any action is taken with regard to her property. Admittedly,

no documentary evidence is filed to show that the 2nd

petitioner was issued any notice. Apart from that, the 1st

petitioner (who has since died), also filed a detailed

explanation mentioning that the 2nd petitioner is the owner of

the property. He has also raised other legal and factual

aspects in his reply to the show cause notice. None of these

aspects are dealt with or considered in the order passed.

Apart from the judgment in M/s. Sudalagunta Sugars

Limited's case (1 supra), this Court also finds that the procedure

stipulated under the POT Act, 1977, even if the same is held to be

applicable, has not been followed. Before a person is deprived of

valuable rights in the property he is entitled to a notice according

to the statute or the rule governing the action and thereafter only

an action can be taken. This is the 'due process' which has to be

followed.

Once it is stated on oath that the 2nd writ petitioner is the

owner of the property, the entire action taken by the respondents

has to be faulted. No document or other evidence is also filed in

support of the many contentions urged in the counter affidavit.

The averments in the affidavit cannot be treated as proof that the

land is 'assigned' land or that it is now dotted land.

It is also noted as rightly submitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioners that the issues raised in the reply to the show

cause notice are also not considered or decided. Thus, the order is

not a 'reasoned' order as required under law.

In the opinion of this Court, if the order is treated to be a

reasoned order, it should consider all the pleas raised and a

decision on the same should be visible. This decision should also

be supported by reasons. For this reason also, the order dated

30.10.200 along with counter affidavit in so far as it relates to the

petitioners is not in accordance with law.

The writ petition is therefore allowed. No order as to costs.

The possession of the petitioners is protected till the petitioners are

dispossessed in a manner known to law and in accordance with

the procedure established by law. This order will not preclude the

respondents from taking the correct and proper action as

warranted by law. In such a case, the petitioners can also raise

all the defences that are available to them.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall

stand dismissed.

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date: 06.01.2023 KLP