Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jasti Rama Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 January, 2024
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.743 of 2022
Between:
Jasti Rama Rao, S/o. Venkaiah,
R/o. Budawada Village, Chimakurthy Mandal,
Prakasam District.
...Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Assignment-I) Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Guntur District and 3 others.
...Respondents
Counsel for Appellant : Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen
Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 : G.P. for Revenue
Dt.: 09.01.2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Learned Government Pleader for Revenue
(Assignments) appearing for the respondents.
HCJ & RRR, J
2. An extent of Ac.10.00 of land in Sy.No.5 of
Yerramkonda Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Ongole Division was
alienated in favour of the petitioner, by the Collector, Prakasam
District, under proceedings bearing No.E1-4587-2009 dated
09.01.2009. The proceedings state that the said land was being
alienated in favour of the petitioner, for the purpose of
establishing a stone crusher unit. A sum of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre
was also collected from the petitioner as market value.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, by letter dated
15.07.2015 had informed the Collector, Prakasam District that the
petitioner had not utilized the land alienated to him for
establishment of stone crusher unit and that necessary
proceedings need to be initiated for violation of the conditions of
alienation. Thereafter, a notice was said to have been issued to the
petitioner, on 14.08.2015, to show cause as to why action should
not be taken against the petitioner. Initially, the petitioner sought
time, under letter dated 24.08.2015 and later filed his objections
by way of a representation dated 04.09.2015. After considering
the explanation set out in the said representation, another notice
dated 08.10.2015 was issued by the District Collector raising
various issues which arose on account of the explanation given by
the petitioner. In response to this notice, the petitioner again filed
HCJ & RRR, J
his further explanation by representation dated 19.10.2015. The
petitioner had also filed another representation dated 30.11.2015.
4. The District Collector after considering all the
objections raised by the petitioner and after considering the
reports given to her had cancelled the alienation of the property
by way of her proceedings bearing Rc.E5/4587/2008, dated
27.04.2016.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached
this Court by way of W.P.No.16258 of 2016. A learned Single
Judge of this Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, had dismissed
the writ petition by an order dated 19.07.2022. Aggrieved by the
said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ appeal.
6. Sri A. Sai Naveen, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent-District
Collector had not considered the matter in its right perspective. He
contends that the appellant was utilizing about Ac.3.00 of land out
of Ac.10.00 of land given to him. He contends that the learned
Single Judge had not taken into account the grounds raised by the
appellant, especially, the issue of some private parties obstructing
the appellant from establishing and operating the stone crusher
plant. The learned counsel would also submit that the transfer of
HCJ & RRR, J
land is a complete transfer and any violation of conditions, even if
such violations had occurred, would not enable the District
Collector to cancel the allotment of land to the appellant. He would
also rely upon the provisions of Section 11 of the Transfer of
property Act, 1882 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd., vs. U.T. Chandigarh1.
7. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the
appellant was given full opportunity to set out his case and in fact,
the appellant was given an opportunity of hearing, twice, before
the District Collector who had cancelled the allotment of land. On
the question of the application under Section 11 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, the learned Single Judge had held that the
said provision would be applicable in cases where there is a
registered deed of sale. The learned Judge also held that since
there was no such registered deed of sale available with the
appellant and the allotment was only by way of a proceeding of the
District Collector, the provisions of Section 11 of the Transfer of
Property Act would not be applicable. We are in agreement with
the proposition of law.
8. It may also be observed that the letter of allotment
itself stipulated that the said allotment shall be subject to certain
(2004) 2 SCC 130
HCJ & RRR, J
conditions and that the Government would be entitled to resume
the land in the event of violation of the said conditions. In such
circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
order of the District Collector or the judgment of the learned Single
Judge.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
JS
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)
9th January 2024
JS
