Dr. A. Shanker Reddy v. The & Ors.

Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: T HE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14408 of 2001 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not giving option in selecting the lands for surrendering the excess land under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, ‘the Act’) as illegal. The petitioner filed his declaration under the Act. The Land Reforms Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) determined the excess land equivalent to 1.1133 standard holdings by its order dated 17.03.1979. The petitioner approached this Court by way of CRP.No.2185 of 1979 and the same was allowed with the direction to the Tribunal to make re-determination of the land afresh. Following the said direction, the Tribunal passed order on 30.05.1980 holding that the petitioner did not hold any land in excess of ceiling area. On appeal filed by the respondents along with the special leave petition, the Supreme Court reversed the order of this Court in CA.No.3837 of 1983 dated

24.10.1994 and restored the original order of the Tribunal dated 22.12.1978. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that though he approached the Tribunal with a request to give him option to select the lands for surrender, the Tribunal has been taking steps to take the lands according to its selection. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that following the order of the Supreme Court dated 24.10.1994, notice in Form-VI was issued on 19.08.1995 to the petitioner giving him an opportunity to submit surrender statement, that as the petitioner failed to file such surrender statement, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Morthad furnished selection-cum-suitability report of the surplus lands to be taken over, that as the majority of the lands were in possession of the third parties, notices under Rule 7(5) of the Rules were issued by the Tribunal on 18.11.1995,

18.12.1995 (wrongly mentioned as 1975), 03.01.1996 and 08.01.1997 to all the occupants, that several persons appeared before the Tribunal, but could not prove their cases by filing valid documents and that since transactions took place after commencement of the Act, the Tribunal declined to delete the lands from the lands to be surrendered. It is further stated that an extent of Ac.58.21 cents equivalent to 1.8486 standard holdings was selected and notice in Form-VIII was also issued on 04.01.1999 and the same was published in the village by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Morthad on

06.01.1999, that as no objections were received, order under Section 10(4) of the Act was passed on

01.12.1999 by accepting the surplus lands as per Form- VIII and their physical possession was handed over to 43 beneficiaries on 31.01.2001. It is also stated that as per the recommendations of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Morthad, certain extents of land were allotted to the Government institutions by the District Collector vide his proceedings dated 31.05.2001 and physical possession of the said land was handed over by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Morthad, under panchanama on 20.06.2001 and 25.06.2001. Respondent No.2 also filed material in support of the above averments contained in his affidavit. No reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner. From the averments contained in the counter affidavit and material produced by the respondents, it is clear that before selecting the lands to be taken over as surplus lands, they have followed the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules. As the petitioner failed to submit his statement, respondents selected the lands in exercise of their powers under the Rules. Not only that the lands were taken over, but they were distributed to various beneficiaries on 31.01.2001 apart from allotting a part of the land to the Government institutions. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the action of the respondents in taking over all the surplus lands. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.18011 of 2001 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. Date: 11.09.2008 ES ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J