Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M.S.Aji Kumar vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Its District ... on 15 February, 2024
APHC010472542014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[ 3299 ]
THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION NO: 11478 OF 2014
Between:
M.S.AJI KUMAR AND OTHERS ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
THE STATE OF A P REP BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR
AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: 2244/B SUDHAKAR REDDY AND NEERAJA
REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: 398/I GOPAL REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: 1977/GP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
The Court made the following:
In Writ Appeal No.830 of 2006 filed by the present petitioner, the
Division Bench of this court while allowing the writ appeal in its judgment
dated 10.08.2008 directed the Superintendent of Police, Ongole to conduct
an enquiry into the sale of the land assigned to the appellant by an
unknown person by preparing forged documents. It was further provided
that it will be the duty of Superintendent of Police concerned to personally
supervise the investigation/ enquiry and ensure that the same is completed
within a period of six months after due notice to the petitioner herein.
2. In the present petition on 31.10.2014, this court passed the following
order:
"The Collector, Prakasam District shall file an affidavit in this case as to
how the original assignment in favour of the impleaded party now has been
cancelled without following the basic principles of putting her on notice. If the
implead party petitioner is still a landless poor person and deserves to be
assigned any land, a suitable land must be identified and the information
must be made available in the counter affidavit for enabling the assignment to
be made in her favour.
So far as the writ petitioner is concerned, he shall not be disturbed from
the land which has been assigned to him and the revenue administration as
well as the police administration must necessarily extend the support for
securing the cultivation of the land by any of the family members of the writ
petitioner.
The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam shall file a report of compliance of
the directions issued by this Court in W.A.No.830 of 2006 dated 10.08.2008.
Call after six weeks."
3. As is evident from the order dated 31.10.2014, the direction was
issued to the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam to file a report of
compliance of the directions issued by this Court in W.A.No.830 of 2006
dated 10.08.2008.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam has not filed the compliance
report.
5. The order impugned in the present petition is cancellation of the DK
No.45/1414, dated 08.09.2004 issued in favour of M.S. Aji Kumar, S/o.
Sukumar (petitioner) for an extent of Ac.0.98 cents in S.No.212/6 of Pellur
Village. The said cancellation order in appeal filed by the present
respondents 5 and 6 is referring to the letter of the Director, Sanik Welfare,
Block-IV, 2nd Floor Gruhakalpa premises, Nampally, Hyderabad dated
25.06.2007. In view thereof, the Revenue Divisional Officer while passing
the impugned order has observed that the serving solders are outside the
eligibility criteria as specified in G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department dated
30.04.1963.
6. However, the copy of the G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963 is not on
record. The copy of the letter dated 25.06.2007 referred to above is also not
on record.
7. The respondents 1 to 4 have also not filed any counter affidavit.
8. The respondents 5 and 6 represented by Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy,
learned counsel appearing through virtual mode have filed the counter
affidavit but the copy of the aforesaid documents have not been annexed
with their counter affidavit as well.
9. There is no representation for the 7th respondent though the name of
his learned counsel is printed in the cause list.
10. Sri S. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
appears today for the respondents 1 to 3. The said respondents shall bring
on record the copy of the letter dated 25.06.2007 of the Director, Sanik
Welfare, and the copy of G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department dated
30.04.1963 through affidavit of the District Collector-1st respondent within a
period of three weeks.
11. The Government Pleader for Home for the Superintendent of Police,
Prakasam District-4th respondent is not present. The 4th respondent shall
file report of compliance of the directions dated 10.08.2008 in W.A.No.830 of
2006, as also as was directed vide order dated 31.10.2014, in the writ
petition that the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam shall also explain as to
why till date the order of this court dated 31.10.2014 has not been complied
with by filing the compliance report in terms of the directions in W.A.No.830
of 2006.
12. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue shall communicate this
order to the learned Government Pleader for Home.
13. Post on 07.03.2024.
14. If by the next date, the compliance report is not filed by the
Superintendent of Police, he shall appear in person before this Court.
15. If the copies of the relevant documents as mentioned above and
required to be filed with affidavit are not filed before the next date, the
District Collector, Prakasam District shall also appear before this Court on
the date fixed.
16. As the matter is old one, no further request for time or adjournment
shall be made.
17. Let a copy of this order be served to learned Government Pleader for
Revenue and learned Government Pleader for Home.
[THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI]
Gk
