B MANI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein claims to be landless poor person. It is stated that his father by name Bangaraiah @ Bangarugan was assigned Ac.1.00 cents of land situated in Sy. No. 1451/5 and Ac.0.25 cents in Sy. No. 1441/10 totaling Ac.1.25 cents in Vinobhanagar Village, Satyavedu Taluk, Nagulapuram Mandal vide DKT patta No. 37/4/1383 dated 22.07.1972. It is stated that the Petitioner's father made the said land fit for cultivation and continued in possession till his death and thereafter the Petitioner continued in possession and enjoyment of the same. Alleging that the 3rd Respondent herein had encroached upon the land in question highhandedly and obtained pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour, the Petitioner made a complaint dated 03.12.2008 before the 2nd Respondent herein requesting for restoration of the land. As the 2nd Respondent failed to take any action, the Petitioner made a detailed representation dated 20.03.2010 before the District Collector, Chittoor. Having considered the same, the 1st Respondent by order dated 07.05.2010 directed the 2nd Respondent to take action as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short the Act 9 of 1977). Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent issued a notice calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why the D-form patta granted to him should not be cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the impugned show cause notice issued by the 2nd Respondent was without jurisdiction apart from being contrary to the 1st Respondent's order dated 07.05.2010.

(2.) The 3rd Respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the land in question was sold by the Petitioner's father to the husband of the 3rd Respondent under sale deed dated 11.03.1976. It is stated that the 3rd Respondent's husband was put in possession and since then he continued in possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 1981, when the Petitioner's father and mother started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the said land, the 3rd Respondent's husband filed O.S. No. 16 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Satyavedu, Chittoor District for permanent injunction to which the Petitioner was also impleaded as Defendant No. 3. After the receipt of summons, the Petitioner and his parents had compromised the matter out of Court and a compromise memo duly signed by them was filed in the suit. Basing on the said compromise memo, O.S. No. 16 of 1981 was decreed granting permanent injunction against the Defendants. The said judgment and decree dated 19.03.1982 in O.S. No. 16 of 1981 became final. It is also stated that the 2nd Respondent after conducting necessary enquiry granted pattadar pass book and title deeds in favour of the 3rd Respondent vide patta No. 667 and Katha No. 254670 duly counter signed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor. Again in the year 2009, the Petitioner started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and therefore, the 3rd Respondent was constrained to file O.S. No. 91 of 2009 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Satyavedu, Chittoor District for permanent injunction. The said suit is pending and by order dated 29.10.2009 in I.A. No. 273 of 2009, status quo was directed to be maintained. Suppressing all the said facts, the writ Petitioner made a representation before the 1st Respondent on 20.03.2010 claiming that D.K. patta granted to his father was subsisting. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner's father had alienated the assigned land long back in the year 1976 much prior to the enactment of Act 9 of 1977 and therefore, the 3rd Respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 3(5) of Act 9 of 1977 as the 3rd Respondent's husband was a landless poor person and had purchased the assigned lands for valid consideration in good faith. Thus, it is contended that the writ petition is misconceived and it is filed as a counter blast to the civil suit filed by the 3rd Respondent in which an interim order of status quo is in operation.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.