K.Dharmalingam & Ors. v. The RDO, Palwancha, Khammam & Ors.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17203 OF 1996 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palwancha, Khammam District, in reviewing the orders passed by him earlier, and passing fresh orders, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. A further direction is sought to restrain the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the lands described in the prayer. The petitioners state that they have purchased about 22 acres of land in various survey numbers of Malkaram Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam District, in various survey numbers through a registered sale deed of the year 1958 and an unregistered sale deed of the year 1963. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dammapeta, second respondent herein, issued a notice under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, on 22-12-1993 directing the petitioners to show cause as to why the lands in their possession shall not be resumed to the Government. The petitioners submitted their reply stating that they purchased the lands under the bona fide impression and that the resumption cannot take place, several decades after the purchase. Certain ancillary submissions were also made. Ultimately, the second respondent passed an order, dated 06-09-1994, directing resumption of the lands from the petitioners. The petitioners filed CMA.Nos.1 to 4 of 1995 before the first respondent. According to them, the appeals were allowed on 27-05-1995. These writ petitions are filed alleging that despite such disposal, the second respondent issued notice of hearing once again. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the record of the appeals does not disclose that they have been disposed of on 27- 05-1995. The various dates of hearing subsequent to 27-05-1995 and the developments that have taken place on such dates, have also been indicated. Ultimately, it is stated that the appeals preferred by the petitioners were dismissed through orders, dated 19-08-1996. Learned counsel for the petitioners had urged several contentions touching on the principles governing powers of review as well as on the merits of the orders, passed by respondents 1 and 2. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment, on the other hand, submits that the so-called orders, dated 27-05-1995, allowing the appeals are non- existent. It is contended that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of further appeal to the District Collector. The second respondent passed orders, dated 06-09-1994, directing resumption of the lands of the petitioners, in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners filed four appeals before the first respondent under Section 4-A (1) of the Act. There is a serious dispute as to whether the appeals were initially disposed of on 27-05-1995 or whether the disposal was given on 19-08-

1996. In the orders, dated 19-08-1996, the first respondent made reference to the circumstances, under which, the alleged orders, dated 27-05-1995, were said to have been passed. This Court would certainly have called for the record and examined the matter on merits, but for the fact that the petitioners had an effective remedy by way of further appeal to the District Collector under sub-section 2 of Section 4-A of the Act. The District Collector would be in a better position to call for the records and examine the matter from the procedural aspects as well as on merits. While admitting the writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim stay on 27-09-1996 and it was made absolute, thereafter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of further appeal under Section 4-A (2) of the Act. If such an appeal is presented within four (4) weeks from today, it shall be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation. Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained till the disposal of the appeal by the District Collector. In case no appeal is filed within the time specified above, the order of status quo shall cease to be in force. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 21st FEBRUARY, 2006. HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.17203 of 1996 PROCEEDING SHEET SL.NO.DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE

21.02.2006 LNR, J WP.MP.No.4058 of 2006 This application is filed with a prayer to set aside the order, dated 25-01-2006, dismissing the writ petition for default. In the affidavit filed in support of WPMP, it is stated that the Advocate engaged by the petitioners Sri M.Ravi stopped practice and has since been employed as Law Officer in a company. They plead that failure to represent the matter on the day when it was called, was on account of the circumstances beyond their control. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order, dated 25-01-2006, is set aside and the writ petition is restored to its file. ________________ 21.02.2006 WP.No.17203 of 1996 OPERATIVE PORTION: Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of further appeal under Section 4-A(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act. If such an appeal is presented within four (4) weeks from today, the same shall be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation. Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained till the disposal of the appeal by the District Collector. In case no appeal is filed within the above specified time limit, the order of status quo shall cease to be in force. There shall be no order as to costs.________________ 21.02.2006Note:

1. issue ‘wire’ at party’s costs. 2. Office to return the bundle to the Court Masters Section, soonafter despatching this order. B/o kvni