Yesaiah Died Per Lrs 27 Ti 29 vs The Mandal Revenue Oficer,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3358 Tel

       THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                            AND
       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

                     WRIT APPEAL No.1201 of 2006


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar)

      Heard Mr. Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel representing

Mr. Raj Kumar Rudra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vedula

Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5 and perused the

material made available on record.

2. This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellants/

writ petitioners against the order dated 19.07.2006 passed in W.P.

No.8704 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge.

3. The case of the appellants/petitioners, in brief, is that they have

filed the said writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 16.06.2004

issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy Division (RDO),

2nd respondent, whereby and whereunder the assignment made in favour

of thirty nine (39) persons, including the appellants/petitioners,

in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.55.03 guntas in Sy.No.337

situated at Zaheerabad (hereinafter called as "the subject land")

was cancelled and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zaheerabad (MRO),

1st respondent, was directed to resume the land in favour of the

Government. The appellants/petitioners further sought a direction HCJ & NVSKJ

canceling the lease of the land to the 5th respondent vide G.O. Ms.

No.1020, dated 13.12.2004 and G.O. Ms. No.23, dated 10.01.2006.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:

4. It is submitted by the appellants/petitioners that the subject land

was declared as surplus agricultural land under A.P. Land Reforms

(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereafter called as

"the Act"). The then Tahsildar, Zaheerabad assigned the land to as many

as Thirty Nine (39) persons in an extent of Acs.1.44 guntas each by

proceedings dated 06.01.1981 for agricultural purpose. The appellants/

petitioners alleged that as required under the provisions of the Act and

A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974

(hereafter called as "the Rules"), the appellants/petitioners paid requisite

amount, obtained possession and subsequently appellants/petitioners

Nos.1, 3, 4 to 7, 9 and 10 obtained pattadar passbooks and were in

possession of the subject property.

5. While so, the 2nd respondent had issued proceedings dated

16.06.2004, directing the 1st respondent/MRO to resume the land to the

Government. The appellants/petitioners further allege that the

5th respondent to whom A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation

(APIIC) allotted Acs.112.00 of land in survey No.325 in 1996 is behind

the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent/RDO. It is also alleged

that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued orders in HCJ & NVSKJ

G.O.Ms.No.1020, dated 13.12.2004 allotting the subject land and the

lease period was extended subsequently by G.O.Ms.No.23, dated

10.01.2006 in favour of the 5th respondent.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDETNS:

6. On behalf of the official respondents No.1 to 4, while denying the

allegations made in the writ petition, the 1st respondent/MRO field

counter affidavit admitting the allotment of lands to the

appellants/petitioners initially. It is submitted that as per the

assignment conditions, the assignees are required to bring the land

under cultivation within three years from the date of assignment, but

they failed to cultivate the land since 1981. Therefore, show cause

notices were issued to all the assignees on 23.03.2004 to explain as to

why assignment should not be cancelled, and Thirty Three (33) of them

submitted a joint representation alleging that they are cultivating the

land regularly. On 28.04.2004, a memo was issued to them to submit

necessary evidence like copies of pahanies and other documents in

support of their claim. However, the Appellants/petitioners did not

submit any evidence and, therefore, the RDO cancelled the assignment

under sub-section (5) of Section 14 of the Act.

7. It is also stated that the land was resumed under a cover of

panchanama dated 02.07.2004 duly changing the entries in the revenue

records as "Kharij Khata". The Government also issued orders leasing HCJ & NVSKJ

out the land to APIIC vide G.O.Ms.No.1484 dated 15.11.1977, who in

turn sublet the land to the 5th respondent for a period of five years from

2005.

8. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions made

by the learned counsel on either side and after considering the provisions

of Section 14(4) and (5) of the Act and Rule 10 (4)(f), (5) and (6) of the

Rules, dismissed the writ petition.

9. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the appellants/petitioners

filed the present appeal.

10. On behalf of the Appellants/petitioners, written submissions have

been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants/

petitioners, while reiterating the same, inter alia, submitted that the

Appellants/petitioners were allotted small extents of land to an extent of

Ac.1.44 cents each as early as on 06.01.1981 and since then they are in

possession by cultivating the subject land. After a long lapse of 24 years

from the date of assignment of subject land, the 2nd respondent, without

following the due procedure contemplated under the Act, has resumed

the assigned land. He would submit that the resumption of the land can

be done on any of the positive acts being done by the allottees of the land

in violation of the allotment order but not on the negative act done by the

allottess i.e. failed to do something, which is provided in the conditions of

allotment. It is submitted that the reason for resumption of the land is HCJ & NVSKJ

that the land owners have failed to cultivate it and have kept it vacant

but the respondents have failed to prove that the land has not been

cultivated at all since the date of the allotment whereas the specific case

of the appellants/petitioners is that the land has been used for

cultivation. Other grounds for dismissal of the writ petition are that the

appellants/ petitioners are found guilty for delay, laches and have not

filed reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. In this

regard, it is submitted that when the appellants/petitioners came to

know that the land was being allotted to the 5th respondent, the

Appellants/petitioners immediately approached the Court by way of filing

the writ petition and it was specifically averred that the show cause

notices have not been served and they were never asked to submit their

representation to the show cause notice and when the appellants/

petitioners were trying to submit to the Court for the delay in filing the

writ petition and the same has not been considered by the learned Single

Judge. It is further submitted that the land which is vested with the

Government can only be used for the public purposes as mentioned in

the Act and not to allot to a private company on lease for non agriculture

purpose by way of resumption from the allottees. To substantiate the

case of the appellants/petitioners, the learned counsel placed reliance on

the cases rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of

Collector Vs. D. Narsing Rao 1 and Land Acquisition Officer-cum-

(2015) 3 SCC 695 HCJ & NVSKJ

RDO., Chevella Division, Hyderabad and others Vs. Mekala Pandu

and others 2 and submitted that the resumption of land after such a long

period of time is bad and the same cannot be allowed and no

compensation has been paid and thus the impugned proceedings are bad

in law.

11. On behalf of the 5th respondent, counter affidavit has been filed in

the present writ appeal, based on which, the learned Senior Counsel

Sri Vedula Srinivas, inter alia, submitted that the 5th respondent is an

Export Oriented Unit and was allotted with Acs.111.727 of land in

Sy.No.325, Zaheerabad Rural by the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure

Corporation Limited vide proceedings dated 23.10.1989 and possession

was also handed over to the 5th respondent. Thereafter,

the 5th respondent has constructed its factory on that land and has been

carrying on its activities. It is further submitted that in pursuance to the

promises made by the State Government, the 5th respondent has entered

into an MoU with the Government of A.P. for expansion of the factory.

Thereafter, the 5th respondent has entered into an agreement with APIIC

on 16.04.2004 whereby the request of the 5th respondent for allotment of

additional land of 135 acres in various survey numbers of Zaheerabad

village adjacent to its factory was agreed upon by the APIIC. It is further

submitted that the 5th respondent has already paid Rs.35.70 lakhs to the

APIIC towards the land acquisition. The work of expansion of the food

2004 SCC OnLine AP 217 HCJ & NVSKJ

processing plant has already commenced and the machinery has been

imported and the installation is in progress in the factory. It is further

submitted that the subject lands in Sy.No.337 is adjacent to the land of

the 5th respondent. Thereafter, since the allottees have failed to cultivate

the land, the official respondents after issuing necessary notices to the

allottess have cancelled the assignment on 16.06.2004. It is further

submitted that as soon as the 2nd respondent passed the cancellation of

the pattas of the 39 assignees, they have approached the 5th respondent

and expressed their willingness to give up their rights in respect of the

subject land in favour of the 5th respondent. Accordingly, all the 39

assignees have entered into an MoU with the 5th respondent on

29.07.2004 and have agreed to receive Rs.5,000/- each towards full and

final settlement of their claims in respect of the subject land of

Acs.12.09, which was seeking allotment from the Government.

The payment of Rs.5,000/- to each of them also took place

simultaneously and they have executed receipt in token of receiving the

said amount. The terms of the said MoU are very clear and are without

any ambiguity. The appellants/petitioners were also parties to that MoU

and along with other assignees these appellants/petitioners have also

received the payment as mentioned above. These facts have been

deliberately suppressed in the writ petition and hence,

the appellants/petitioners have no right to approach this Court either in HCJ & NVSKJ

law or on facts in so far as the land of Acs.12.09 in Sy.No.337 is

concerned.

12. It is further submitted that the writ petition was disposed of even

before the notice was served on the 5th respondent and accordingly the

respondent could not file a counter affidavit apprising the Court on the

facts. This Court passed interim order in WAMP. No.2494 of 2006 dated

15.11.2006 restraining the official respondents of allotting the land in

Sy.No.337 in favour of the 3rd parties. In the light of the above

mentioned facts, more particularly in the light of the fact that the

appellants/writ petitioners themselves have entered into an MoU., with

the 5th respondent on 29.07.2004 giving up their rights in respect of the

land of Acs.12.09 in Sy.No.337, the interim order requires to be vacated

by this Court to the extent of the land of Acs.12.09 which was already

given on lease by the Government to the 5th respondent.

13. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has called for

the records from the office of the 2nd respondent and on verification of

the same has recorded findings regarding the service of the show cause

notice, objections jointly filed by the assignees and also about the service

of the final order on them. The learned Senior Counsel eventually

submitted that the grounds urged in the appeal as well in the written

submissions filed by the appellants/petitioners have already been dealt

with in detail by the learned Single Judge and the impugned order does HCJ & NVSKJ

not suffer from any legal infirmity and hence the interference of this

Court with the impugned order is not warranted.

DISCUSSION:

14. It is not in dispute that the subject land was assigned to the

appellants/petitioners and thereafter it has been resumed on the ground

that the assignees did not get the subject lands into cultivation and

whereas the explanation of the appellants/petitioners are claiming

cultivation. Thereafter, the appellants/petitioners were issued a Memo

to produce evidence to that effect but they failed to prove the cultivation.

Further, as far as the issue of delay in approaching the Court after a

lapse of a year and half, the appellants/petitioners' categorical stand was

that there was no notice to them and therefore, they were not aware of

the proceedings. It is also contended that the documentary evidence

produced by the respondents including a show cause notice issued to the

appellants/petitioners would show that the show cause notice was duly

served on them and the same was found belied by abundant

documentary evidence produced by the respondents including a show

cause notice issued to the appellants/petitioners. Further, it is also

noticed that the appellants/petitioners did not file the reply to the

counter averments made in the writ petition. All these aspects have been

meticulously gone by the learned Single Judge by calling the required

records from the concerned respondents and has rightly appreciated the

case and passed the impugned order. That apart, even in the present HCJ & NVSKJ

appeal, no reply is filed by the appellants/petitioners disputing the facts

with respect to the MoU dated 29.07.2004.

15. This Court on 15.11.2006 while admitting the appeal, in WAMP.

No.2494 of 2006 has granted the interim direction restraining the official

respondents from allotting the land in Sy.No.337, Zaheerabad village and

Mandal, Medak District in favour of third parties. Thereafter, on behalf

of the 5th respondent, WVMP. No.2970 of 2006, has been filed seeking to

vacate the said interim order, and this Court by order dated 06.02.2007

dismissed the said vacate petition and made the interim order dated

15.11.2006 as absolute.

16. For better appreciation, the order dated 06.02.2007 passed in

WVMP. No.2870 of 2006 is reproduced hereunder:

"W.V.M.P. No.2870 of 2006 In W.A.M.P. No.2494 of 2006

Sri Vedula Srinivas for applicant - respondent No.5. Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy for non-applicant Nos.1 to 12. Government Pleader for Assignment for non applicant Nos.13 to 16.

This is an application by non-applicant No.5 for vacating interim order dated 15.11.2006.

The writ appeal filed by non-applicant Nos.1 to 12 is directed against order dated 10-7-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he upheld the cancellantion of allotment of land to the applicant and resumption thereof.

HCJ & NVSKJ

While admitting the writ appeal on 15-11-2006, the Court restrained the official respondents from allotting the land in Survey No.337, Zaheerabad Village and Mandal, Medak District to third parties.

In the affidavit filed as a counter in the writ appeal, Shri N.Vijay Kumar, Liaison Officer of the applicant has extensively referred to the allotment of land to it by the government and pleaded that in view of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the appellants and the applicant, the restraint order against the allotment of Ac.12.09 cts., of land in Survey No.337 should be vacated.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our opinion, there is no valid ground or justification to vacate the interim order and thereby enable the official respondents to allot the land in dispute to the applicant or any other person because, once the land is allotted to other persons, its nature is bound to be changed and even if the appeal is allowed, it may become impossible for the appellants to regain the land in the present status.

With the above observation, the application is dismissed and interim order dated 15.11.2006 is made absolute to last till the decision of the writ appeal."

17. On a perusal of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge had

considered the vital aspects and relevant provisions of the Act and Rules

and for better understanding, the same is reproduced hereunder:

HCJ & NVSKJ

"The assignment was cancelled by the RDO on the ground that the petitioners failed to comply with the conditions of assignment. In this connection, a reference may be made to subsections (4) and (5) of Section 14 of the Act, which read as under.

14. Disposal of land vested in Government:-

(4) Any transfer of the land under this section shall be subject to -

(i) the condition that the land shall not be alienated by the transferee by way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease orin any manner whatsoever otherwise than by way of mortgage in favour of the Government, a bank or a co operative Society, including a land mortgage bank; and

(ii) the condition that where the land transferred is an orchard, the transferee shall continue to maintain such land as an orchard; and

(iii) such other condition as may be prescribed.

(5) Any alienation effected or other act done in respect of any land in violation of the conditions specified in sub section (4) shall be null and void; and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall resume the land after giving an opportunity to the persons affected of making a representation in this behalf.

A reference may also be made to clause (f) of subrule (4) and subrules (5) and (6) of Rule 10 of the Rules, which read as under.

HCJ & NVSKJ

10. Disposal of lands vested in the Government:-

(4) The allotment or transfer of lands shall be made by the Tahsildar concerned subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(f) Where the land is transferred for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, the land shall be cultivated personally by the transferee or any of the members of his family or by hired labour under the supervision and control of himself or any member of his family.

(5) Where any person fails to pay the instalment due or violates any of the conditions of allotment or transfer, the Revenue Divisional Officer, may after giving an opportunity to the person concerned of making a representation in this behalf within thirty days from the date of communication of a notice, pass an order forfeiting the amount already paid and resuming the land and also authorize any officers not below the rank of a Revenue Inspector to take possession of the land;

Provided that no such land shall be taken possession of until the seasonal crop on the ground is harvested.

(6) Against every order of forfeiture of the amount or resumption of the land passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, an appeal shall lie to the District Collector within thirty days from the date of the communication of the order.

Reading the provisions of Section 14(4) and (5) of the Act and Rule 10 (4)(f), (5) and (6) of the Rules would show that while allotting/ assigning the land, the MRO can HCJ & NVSKJ

impose conditions including a condition that the land shall be used for the purpose of agriculture and that it shall be cultivated personally by the transferee. If the conditions of such transfer are violated, the allotment itself is deemed to be null and void under Section 14(5) of the Act. Further, when the conditions of allotment are violated, it is competent for the RDO to resume the land after giving a notice to the person concerned for making representation. If any order is passed by the RDO resuming the land, an appeal is provided under Rule 10(6) of the Rules to the District Collector. In this case, the petitioners did not cultivate the land and, therefore, after issuing show cause notice, the RDO cancelled the allotment and ordered resumption. Indeed as disclosed in the counter affidavit, the land was taken possession by the MRO on 02.7.2004."

The writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly,

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."

ANALYSIS:

18. Further, the learned counsel for the Appellants/petitioners placed

reliance on the case of D.Narsing Rao (one supra) and submitted that

the land cannot be resumed suo moto after a long period of time i.e., after

a long lapse of 24 years. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had

categorically considered the aspect where no limitation period is

prescribed under statute, power should be exercised within reasonable

period and reasonableness of period is to be determined having regard to

lapse of time between knowledge of alleged fraud or irregularity. But, in

the instant case, on the aspect of delay the Appellants/petitioners took HCJ & NVSKJ

the stand that there was no notice to them and the same has been

proved belied by abundant documentary evidence. Hence, the facts and

circumstances of the said case are not applicable to the present case.

That apart, the appellants/petitioners themselves have given up their

rights on the subject lands in terms of the MoU dated 29.07.2004.

19. The judgment referred by the learned counsel for the appellants/

petitioners in the case of Mekala Pandu (two supra) is a case wherein the

lands were resumed for public purpose under the provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1984. In such a case, the assignees are entitled to

compensation and all the consequential benefits under the said Act.

But, in the case on hand, the assignees, appellants/petitioners, were

granted pattas for the purpose of cultivation and the conditions of pattas

were not complied with, therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer has

resumed the subject land under the provisions of the APLR Act, 1973

and the possession has already been delivered to the 5th respondent.

As such, the facts and circumstances of the referred case and the

present case are different and the same are not applicable to the present

case.

20. As per Section 10(6) of the Act, the appellants/petitioners had a

remedy to appeal against every order of forfeiture of the amount or

resumption of the land passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,

and the appellants/petitioners without availing remedy of appeal straight HCJ & NVSKJ

away filed the writ petition. Further, on a perusal of the pleadings in the

writ affidavit, grounds have been urged by the appellants/petitioners

that no remedy of appeal is available to them as the entire proceedings

were made at the instance of the appellate authority i.e. District

Collector. However, no such proof has been filed substantiating their

submissions.

21. In the case on hand, admittedly the pattas were granted on

06.01.1981 and show cause notices were issued for cancellation of patta

on 16.06.2004.

22. On a careful perusal of the cancellation proceedings dated

16.06.2004 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is noted that as

per the information of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zaheerabad vide

letter dated 26.02.2004 that since from the date of the assignment,

the assignees have failed to cultivate the land and kept fallow and that as

per the assignment conditions, the appellants/petitioners have failed to

adhere to the assignment conditions and eventually they have violated

the patta conditions. Thereafter, show causes notices were issued by the

Revenue Divisional Officer vide letter dated 23.03.2004 to explain the

reasons for violation of the patta conditions and the same were served on

the appellants/petitioners by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zaheerabad.

Thereafter, the appellants/petitioners have submitted their explanation

stating that they are cultivating the land every year. Thereafter, a Memo HCJ & NVSKJ

has been issued on 28.04.2004 to submit the copies of pahanies and

other documents if any in support of their claim that they are cultivating

the land regularly from the date of assignment and to that effect no

documents as such have been submitted. More over, the Mandal

Revenue Officer, Zaheerabad, has informed that as per the village records

the land is kept fallow with out any cultivation. As such, the plea of

assignees that they are cultivating the land regularly is not correct.

Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued the proceedings of

cancellation of patta in terms of Section 14 (5) of the Act stating that any

land in violation of Section 14 (5) of the Act shall be null and void.

In view of the same, the assignments to the Appellants/petitioners of the

subject lands were cancelled and the Mandal Revenue Officer was

requested to resume the land duly conducting panchanama. Further,

the lease proposals were submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer

proposing to lease Acs.12.09 of subject land to the 5th respondent on

24.06.2004. On 02.07.2004, the panchanama was conducted and the

land was resumed to the Government vide proceedings dated

02.07.2004. Thereafter, the appellants/petitioners have entered an

agreement with the 5th respondent on 29.07.2004 and all the 39

assignees have signed the said agreement. Thereafter, the Government

vide G.O. Ms. No.1020, dated 13.12.2004 granted the lease in favour of

the 5th respondent.

HCJ & NVSKJ

23. On a perusal of the MoU, it is noticed that all the 39 assignees

have signed the MoU, have given their thumb impressions as parties to

MoU and obtained payment receipt from the assignees, which have been

filed as material papers in the writ appeal. Thereafter, only 12 assignees

have filed the writ petition on 25.04.2006. In the present case, the

possession was also taken by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 02.07.2004.

The Appellants/petitioners have given up their rights by taking money

from the 5th respondent and entered into an MoU dated 29.07.2004 to

that effect.

24. It could be inferred from the above facts that the appellants/

petitioners have filed the writ petition after resumption of the subject

land by the Government and after grant of lease to the 5th respondent

and after having received the amount from the 5th respondent under

MoU on 29.07.2004, nearly after more than one and half year.

CONCLUSION:

25. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after

noting the subsequent events from the date of taking possession of the

subject land by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the date of MoU entered

by the appellants/petitioners with the respondent No.5 and the

submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge after thorough

verification of the documents and records had comprehensively dealt HCJ & NVSKJ

with the case of the appellants/petitioners and arrived at a right

conclusion. In view of the same, we do not see any reason to differ with

the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order

and this writ appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.

26. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

                                                 ___________________________
                                                      ALOK ARADHE, CJ


                                                 ___________________________
                                                    N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
Date:        -10-2023
LSK