High Court · 2011

Lakshmamma, W/o Kondanna and Smt. M. Nagasubbulu, D/o Ramachandrappa filed applications before the Mandal Revenue Officer / Tahsildar, Bukka Samudram Village, seeking grant of house site patta with regard to the same land, which was said to have been purchased by them from Smt. Asadi Thirupalamma, the Tahsildar got the matter enquired into. The enquiry revealed that through a registered document bearing No. 4551, dated 16.06.2000, Smt. Asadi Thirupalamma has sold away the land for a sum of Rs.44,000/-. Since the assignee has thus breached the conditions of grant, the Tahsildar issued a show cause notice on 22.12.2004 to Smt. Thirupalamma, proposing as to why the assignment made in her favour be not cancelled. Smt. Thirupalamma filed her explanation stating that she was forcefully taken to the Sub-Registrar’s office and there, her signatures have been taken on a written document by threatening her with dire consequences. She has also filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 2715 of 2005 in this Court, questioning the validity of the show cause notice issued by the Tahsildar. On 17.02.2005, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction not to dispossess the said Thirupalamma from the land in question, without passing any final order, in pursuance of the show cause notice, dated 22.12.2004. In view of this order, the matter was again got investigated through the Mandal Revenue Inspector-I of B.K.Samudram, who reported that a temporary hut has been got erected by Smt. Asadi Thirupalamma and she started residing there from the month of December 2005. Prior to raising this temporary hut, she was stated to be residing at Guntur. Therefore, taking all the factors into account and consideration, the Tahsildar did not believe the explanation offered by Smt. Thirupalamma that she has been coerced and threatened to execute the sale deed in question. Further, neither was there any complaint lodged with the police nor any steps taken for getting the said sale deed cancelled. In those set of circumstances, the Tahsildar, has recorded a finding that the original assignee has violated the conditions of grant of house site patta and hence, he has cancelled the assignment made in her favour on 17.09.1991 and resumed land to the government. He passed orders in this regard on 27.02.2007. Smt. Thirupalamma went in appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, passed orders on 29.10.2007, confirming the findings of fact recorded by the Tahsildar. However, the Tahsildar was asked to enquire into the request of Smt. Lakshmi Devi and Smt. K. Nagalakshmi, who applied for allotment of the above site in their favour, if they are otherwise eligible for assignment of the same. Against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on

29.10.2007, the matter was further carried in revision before the Joint Collector, Anantapur, who passed orders on 12.06.2009. The Joint Collector has dismissed the revision finding that there are no merits therein. Though several contentions have been canvassed in this Writ Petition, there was no explanation offered as to why this Writ Petition has been initiated more than two years after the Joint Collector has decided the entire question. This apart, nowhere an explanation has been put forth as to why Smt. Thirupalamma could keep quiet if it were to be true that she has been forcefully taken to the Sub-Registrar’s Office to execute the document conveying title over a property, in June

2000. In the absence of any credible material, it will be difficult to believe the explanation offered by Smt. Thirupalamma for executing the sale deed, which was registered on 16.06.2000. It is never in doubt that the grant in favour of Smt. Thirupalamma was subject to the specific condition that the land in question should not be alienated. The land is, undoubtedly, heritable, but not alienable. For violation of the condition of the grant, the grant itself is liable to be cancelled. Realizing this, all that the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri K. Srinivas, would contend strenuously before me is that the Tahsildar ought to have resumed the land, only for putting the original assignee back in possession instead of ordering for resumption of the land by the government in toto. To the extent of securing resumption of possession of land in favour of the original assignee is concerned, there is an element of discretion left in the hands of the competent authority. It is not invariably needed to be resorted to. Under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, the consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3 have been provided for. It is set out therein in clause (a) of sub-section (1) that the competent authority may take possession of the assigned land, after evicting the person in possession in such a manner as is prescribed for the said purpose. There afterwards, he can restore the assigned land to the original assignee or his legal heir, or where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such assignee or legal heir, resume the assigned land to government for eventual assignment to landless poor persons in accordance with the rules for the time being in force. A reading of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 4, undoubtedly, discloses that the competent authority has been vested with a sense of discretion in the matter insofar as restoration of land to the original assignee or his legal heirs is concerned. It is no doubt true that such a discretion has got to be exercised on sound lines and properly. But, in a case of this nature, where neither the assignee nor anyone on her behalf has moved the Tahsildar about their being dispossessed of the lands, when the matter has been brought to the notice of the Tahsildar by way of a petition moved by some 3rd parties, the matter has been set in motion. Even at that stage, the explanation offered by the original assignee, when it was found to be not genuine and lacking in bona fides, perhaps, the Tahsildar is justified in coming to a conclusion that resumption of possession of the land in favour of the original assignee is not the proper course in the matter. Therefore, the action of the Tahsildar in not restoring possession in favour of the original assignee, Smt. Thirupalamma, cannot be faulted. I find that the discretion exercised by the Tahsildar in the case cannot be said to be perverse or improper. I therefore, do not see any reason, much less a justifiable one for entertaining this Writ Petition and hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage without costs, with the consent of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 14th July 2011