High Court · 1999

Order

As the issues that arise for consideration in both these writ petitions are interlinked, they are heard together

and are being disposed of by this common order. In the writ petition in W.P.No.25982 of 1999, petitioners have questioned the order, dated 30th August 1999, passed by the 4th respondent/Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, the body constituted under the provisions of the A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965. By the aforesaid order, the allotments made in favour of petitioners, are cancelled and a portion of said lands were re-allotted to respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No.18486 of

2009. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts as arise in W.P.No.25982 of 1999. The petitioners claim that they are residents of Valloor village of Samalkote Mandal in East Godavari District. Originally, the lands covered by Sy.Nos.25/1A admeasuring Ac.1.86 cents, 23/2B admeasuring Ac.0.80 cents, 26/A admeasuring Ac.1.57 cents, admeasuring Ac.0.12 cents, 26/1B admeasuring Ac.2.19 cents, 25/1B admeasuring Ac.1.46 cents, were owned by one Duddampudi Chinna Jogi of Valloor village of Samalkote Mandal in East Godavari District. He has donated the aforesaid lands to the Bhoodan Yagna Board on 08.08.1964. To that effect, a gazette notification was published under the provisions of the A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965, on 21.07.1998. The aforesaid lands totally admeasuring 8 acres, were allotted to the petitioners, vide proceedings of allotment bearing Nos.10330 to 10333, on 03.02.1989, on their claim that they are landless poor persons and residents of Valloor village. Subsequently, on the report of the Revenue Divisional officer, Kakinada, stating that the allottees to whom lands were allotted, were benamidars of the donors and the allotments made in their favour are to be reviewed, without conducting any inquiry and without issuing any prior notice, the allotments made in favour of petitioners for which, pattas were issued, are cancelled by impugned order, dated 30th of August 1999, issued in Proceeding No.C/140/96. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, that first of all, notices are not served on the petitioners, and in any event, having recorded a finding that explanations are also filed by the petitioners, the 4th respondent-Board did not consider the same, but solely relied on the report sent by the Mandal Revenue Officer and given its finding. When cancellation proceedings are initiated by the 4th respondent-Board, it to have conducted independent inquiry with reference to the explanations referred to in the impugned proceedings and should have taken an independent decision. It is submitted that the copy of the report sent by the Revenue Divisional officer is also not furnished to the petitioners, though basing on the same, cancellation orders are passed. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel Sri N.Naveen Kumar, appearing A.P.Bhoodan Yagna Board, that though there was an allotment of lands in question to the petitioners at first instance, as subsequent inquiries revealed that they are benamidars of the original donors and are not residents of the village, proceedings are initiated by issuing show cause notice, dated 11.03.1997, issued in proceedings No.BYB/C/160/96, and after considering the explanations filed by the petitioners, cancellation orders are passed. It further submitted learned Counsel Smt.K.Hemalatha, appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.No. 18486 of 2009, that after the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, the Board has taken possession of the lands in question, and an extent of Ac.2.10 cents was allotted to respondent No.4 and an extent of Ac.1.49 cents was allotted to respondent No.5, on their claim that they are landless poor persons, and they were also granted pattas. It is submitted that they are the bonafide assignees and landless poor persons, as such, any interference at this stage, will affect their rights. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and also perused the copy of the order, dated 30th of August

1999. When it is pleaded that show cause notices were not served on the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-Bhoodan Yagna Board, was directed to produce the file relating to cancellation of allotments, so as to know whether show cause notices were served on the petitioners or not. When the matter is taken up today, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel that the show cause notices, dated 11.03.1997, are not available in the file, but a perusal of the impugned order indicate that though proceedings are initiated mainly on the allegation that the petitioners are the benamidars of the donor and are also not residing in the village where the lands are situated, no independent finding is recorded by the authority for cancellation of allotments. Even from a perusal of the impugned order, firstly, it is not clear that whether any notices are served on the petitioners and any explanations are filed by them. When the show cause notice, dated 11.03.1999, is referred to in the 2nd reference, it is not known as to why such notice is not available relating the cancellation proceedings. Further, it is to be noticed that though proceedings are initiated by the Board for cancellation, as evident from the very impugned order that after filing of the explanations, the same were sent to the Mandal Revenue Officer for obtaining his views, and based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the impugned order is passed. There is also no indication of conducting any inquiry by the Mandal Revenue Officer before sending his report to the Board. When the order is based solely on the report sent by the Mandal Revenue Officer, a copy of which, it appears, is not even supplied to the petitioners, in the absence of any clear findings on the allegations levelled against the petitioners, and as much as respondent No.4 has not considered the matter independently, I deem it is a fit case for re-consideration of the matter by respondent No.4. In ordinary course, if the impugned order is set aside, petitioners are entitled for restoration of the land, but as it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the Bhoodan Yagna Board that a part of the land is already used for road widening and majority of the remaining portions are already assigned to third parties, namely, respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No.18486 of 2009, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to possession as on today, till final orders are passed pursuant to this order of remand, and fresh consideration of the matter by respondent No.4. For the aforesaid reasons, the order, dated 30th August 1999, issued by the 4th respondent-Board, in Proceedings No.C/140/96, is set aside with a direction to respondent No.4 to issue fresh show cause notices to the petitioners inviting their explanations, and pass appropriate orders after considering such explanations. The petitioners shall file a memo before respondent No.4, indicating their present addresses for service of notices and further communications, within a period of eight weeks from today. There shall be a further direction that status quo as on today to be maintained with regard to the lands covered by impugned proceedings, appropriate orders are passed by the competent authority, pursuant to this remand order. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st July 2011