The High Court · 2024

the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any, writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 2""^ respondent herein from embarking upon any enquiry in terms of the Notice issued in Proceedings Roc.No.450/2008 dated 29.03.2008 and declare the said proceedings as being illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to principles of natural justice, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India as well as being contrary to the provisions of "The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and consequently further proceedings stay all pursuant to Proceedings Roc.No.450/2008 dated 29.03.2008 by the 2nd respondent herein. issued notice I.A. NO: 1 OF 2008tWPMP. NO: 10870 OF 2008) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the said Notice issued in Proceedings Roc.No.450/2008 dated 29.03.2008 by the 2 of Section 8 of the Andhra respondent herein under Sub-Section (2) Holdings) Act, Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. 1973, Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010614872008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8229/2008 Between: K. Ramachandra Reddy AND ...PETITIONER Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by Its Principal and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.P VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: Petitioner assails by this writ petition the notice issued by 2'"'^ respondent purportedly exercising the power under Section 8(2) of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 r/w Rule 3(4) of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974, inter alia directing to file a declaration in Form - I disclosing the particulars of land held by the petitioner or by their family and failing which proposed to initiate prosecution 2 under Section 24 of the Act as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader representing on behalf of the respondents.

3. (a) The petitioner has inherited various extents of land from his father by virtue of a WILL and by the advent of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the petitioner along with his deceased mother and sister filed declarations as required under Section 8 before the primary authority. The primary authority upon enquiry passed orders in C.C. Nos.564, 565 and 566 of 1975 determining the holdings of the petitioner and two others to be in excess of ceiling limit prescribed under the Act. The said orders were challenged in appeals vide LRA. Nos.2079, 2083, and 2084 of 1976 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. By common order dated

28.05.1977, the appeals were allowed holding declarants were holding lands within the limits prescribed under the Act and the said order has attained finality. (b) The petitioner further states that he has not purchased any other agricultural property after the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, therefore, there was never an occasion for the 3 petitioner to exceed the ceiling limit prescribed under the Act. The counsel further contends that there is no fresh acquisition. The petitioner need not file any declaration once again and any such requirement arises only if there is a future acquisition in terms of Section 18 of the Act. The 2^^^ respondent could not have exercised jurisdiction by issuing the impugned notice and further invoking Section 24 of the Act, which is penal in nature completely unwarranted. Learned counsel further contends that the Act does not contemplate filing a declaration twice concerning the same lands and once having filed the declaration and enquiry is complete, the 2"^ respondent becomes functus officio and cannot once again reopen the proceedings.

4. No counter has been filed, however, based on the record. the learned Assistant Government Pleader opposes the above submissions and would contend that it is only a notice calling upon the petitionerto furnish the declaration, instead of doing so. the petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Court and there are no merits in the submissions made by the petitioner.

5. It is the admitted case that the petitioner already filed a declaration C.C. No.564/1975 disclosing agricultural ! properties held by him and the said proceedings have finally culminated into orders dated 28.05.1997 passed by the Land 4 Reforms Appellate Tribunal, whereby it was declared that the lands held by the petitioner were within the ceiling limits and further that, no new extent of lands were acquired later point. Under the scheme of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, a declaration is required to be filed initially when the Act came into force and once such declaration is filed and processed, it does not require the second declaration to be filed unless there are fresh acquisitions in terms of Section 18 of Act. On going through impugned notice

29.03.2008, it does not disclose that the petitioner has acquired any fresh agricultural land, therefore, the question of the 2"^ respondent assuming jurisdiction and issuing such notice ' does not arise. This Court is satisfied that the very issuance of such notice is without jurisdiction.

6. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice vide Roc.No.450/2008, dated 29.03.2008, issued by the 2^^ respondent is hereby set aside. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. s That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above witness the Hon’ble Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur, The Chief Justice on this Tuesday, The Fifth day of Novemer, Two Thousand and Twenty Four. //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.U.V.BHASKARA RAO itANTREGISJBAR A SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal, Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. \

2. The Land Reforsm Tribunal / Revenue Divisional Offcer, Tirupati.

3. The Authorised, Officer / Special Tahsildar, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Land Reforms, Tirupati.

4. Tahsildar / Mandal Revenue Officer, Sathyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District.

5. One CC to 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Sri P. Venugopal, Advocate [OPUC]

7. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr I HIGH COURT DATED:06/11/2024 ORDER WP.No.8229 of 2008 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS