Smt. Kavitha v. The Commissioner of Appeals, O/o The Chief Commissioner of Land

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be % pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's assigned land in Ac.3.48 Cents in Raptadu Mandal, Ananthapur."' lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P No. 13447 of 2013 dated 28.0^:2023^pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. ^ lA NO: 3 OF iQ23 Petition under Section 1^1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to disburse the compensation the respondents 6 to 8 or to any third party towards acquisition of part of the land in an extent of Ac. 1.52 Cents out of the land assigned to the petitioner. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM - Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: SRI O.MANOHAR REDDY, SR^ Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI S.V.MUNI REDDY ^ The Court made the following: JUDGMENT COUNSEL APHC010553072023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3508] (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY JHE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 1131/2023 Between: Smt. Kavitha, ...APPELLANT AND The Commissioner Of Appeals and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:

1.S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.S VMUNI REDDY

2.GP FOR REVENUE

3.0 MR LAW FIRM The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The appellant herein assigned Ac.5.20cents Sy.No.439 of Rapthadu Village. This land was acquired by way of resumption, After such acquisition, requisitioning authority. instead paying compensation, assigned another 2 Ac.S.OOcents of land in Sy.Nos.l59-A, 159-2B, village to the appellant, 159-2B/3D of the same The said land was given to her by way of s proceedings dated 18.01.2005 of Subsequently, the Joint Collector, proceedings dated 12.08.2008 had the Tahsildar, Rapthadu Mandal. Ananthapuram District., by his resumed the said lands on the ground that Ac.S.OOcents of land assigned to the appellant, under the proceedings dated 18.01.2005, were taken from the respondents 6 8 herein and that the resumption on such land from these respondents was in violation of requirements of the Law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The the orders of resumption passed consequence of such finding was that against the respondents 6 to 8 were set-aside. However, the Joint Collector had further held that the land was to be handed over to the Government instead of the respondents 6 to 8 or the appellant herein..

2. Aggrieved by this Commissioner of Land Administration order, appellant had approached the by way of an appeal bearing No.BCWI/597/2008. This appeal also stood dismissed by an order

30.03.2013 ground cancelling assignment of land to the respondents 6 to 8 was defective and consequently assignment made in favour of the appellant would irregular and cannot be upheld. c -'t: 3

3. It may also be noted that the respondents 6 to 8 had impleaded V themselves in the appeal filed by the appellant, A further fact that requires to be noticed is that the respondents 6 & 8 had also filed appeals separately appeals allowed

30.03.2013, by the Commissioner holding that the order of the Joint Collector dated 12.08.2008 requires to be set-aside and remanded the appeals back to the Joint Collector.

4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner, the appellant had moved this court by way of W.P No.13447 of 2013, which came to dismissed learned Single Judge by order dated

28.08.2023. The learned Single Judge took the view that the resumption of the land from the unofficial respondents is not in accordance with Law and carving out bits and pieces of the land from the respondents 6 to 8 and allotting the same to the appellant, is not in accordance with Law.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present appeal.

6. Heard Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 6 & 7; Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 8^^ respondent and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 5. 4

7. A perusal of the proceedings filed before this Court would show that respondent No.7 had been allotted assigned land as a part of the rehabilitation of Ex-Naxalites. The father of respondent No.8 assigned the land under the Ex-Servicemen quota, while respondent No.6 was assigned land under the landless poor category, The assignments made to these three respondents was sought to be set- aside by the Tahsildar on the ground of violation of conditions of assignment, namely non-cultivation of the land for the first three years after assignment. This action of the Tahsildar was rejected by both the Joint Collector as well as the Commissioner of appeals on two grounds. Firstly, that the order had been passed without notice to these respondents and would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Secondly, on the ground that the claim of the non-cultivation of land at such a belated stage after the land had been assigned quite some time back, was not permissible, The learned Single Judge agreed with the said findings, We do not see any reason to differ from such findings.

8. As the resumption of land itself is not in accordance with Law, the consequent assignment of such land to the appellant would have to fail.

9. However, the matter cannot rest at that stage. The fact remains that the land originally assigned to the appellant, has been taken away "■ V. V 5 from her and the present extent of land was given to her as compensation for loss of land, which was given earlier.

10. The Government instead of compensating the appellant for such loss, had taken the route of assigning another extent of land to the appellant. In such circumstances, it is, but necessary that the appellant be allotted an alternative piece of land. The question of considering whether such land is to be allotted or not does not arise as that stage has passed the minute the authorities decided to assign an alternate piece of land to the appellant in lieu of the land lost by her.

11. In the normal course, this Court would have left it open to the respondent authorities to consider fresh assignment of land. However, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, this Writ Appeal is disposed of, affirming the Order of the learned Single Judge, with a modification to the extent of directing the respondent Nos.l to 5 to identify and assign Ac.5.00 cents of land to the appellant, either within territorial limits of Rapthadu Village or within the Mandal, within a period of (4) four months, from the date of receipt of this Order. Needless to say the said land should be fit for agriculture and acceptable to the appellant. / 6 There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending 'A r applications shall stand closed. I To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR SE OFFICER

1. The Commissioner of Appeals, O/o the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Vijayawada. 2. The District Collector, Ananthapur. 3. The Joint Collector, Ananthapur. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur.,- 5. The Tahsildar, Raptadu Mandal. Ananthapur District 6. One CC to Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri O. Manohar Reddy, Advocate[OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, Adocate[OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra 10. Three CD Copies. Pradesh. [OUTf HIGH COURT DATED:05/11/2024 JUDGMENT WA.No.1131 Of 2023 X 18 NOV 2:2'» <2- ^ Current Section X^esPATCVV^Si^ -ii DISPOSING OF THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS