THURAKA ONNURAMMA Vs. TAHSILDAR KADIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two petitioners. The first petitioner is the mother and the second in her son. Both of them were landless poor persons. In G. O. Ms. No. 1142 Revenue dated 18-6-1954, the State Government issued executive instructions governing the mode of assignment of Government lands to the landless poor persons. On the basis of the aforesaid G. O. and subject to its conditions the mother was assigned in the year 1956, Ac. 2.50 cents of land in Survey No. 970 in Ginjepalli village, Kadiri Taluk, Anantapur District. Similarly in the year 1968 an extent of Ac. 2.56 cents of land adjoining the above land and situated in Survey No. 970/2 of the same village was assigned to the son under the aforesaid G. O. Ms. No. 1142. The importance of the aforesaid G. O. Ms. No. 1142, consists in the prohibition it enacts against alienation of the lands assigned under that G. O. Under that G. O., it is provided that the assigned lands are heritable, but not alienable and when the assignee breaches the condition of in alien ability the G. O. says that the Government shall be at liberty to resume the lands and assign the same to whomsoever they like.

(2.) The Tahsildar, Kadiri received complaints engineered, the petitioners say, by a local landlord that the mother and son had alienated some portions of the lands assigned to them. Acting on those complaints the Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners on 31/04/1977, calling upon them to show-cause why the assignments earlier made should not be cancelled and the lands resumed. To this show cause notice, the mother and the son offered their explanation admitting the alienation but pleading in extenuation as the apothecary in Romeo and Juliet pleaded in selling mortal drugs in violation of law of Mantua to Romeo that it was their poverty that consented to the sales and not their will. From the records I find that the Tahsildar got an enquiry conducted through the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Kadiri and the village officers and collected evidence from the villagers and eventually resumed the lands earlier granted to the petitioners for the reason of their violation of condition of in alien ability attached to the grant. This order of the Tahsildar was made on 27-9-1977. Against that order of the Tahsildar the petitioners had unsuccessfully appealed to the Sub-Collector, Penugonda and later to the District Revenue Officer, Anantapur. The District Revenue Officer, Anantapur by his order dated 28-5-1978, confirmed the orders of resumption passed by the lower authorities. It is against these orders of the District Revenue Officer, Anantapur dated 28-5-1978, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Under Government Order No. 1142 dated 18-6-1954, rights of resumption in favour of the Government in the event of the assignees alienating the land is clearly reserved. Tested on the touchstone of G. O. Ms. No. 1142 dated 18-6-1954, the impugned orders of resumption in this case are clearly legal and must be upheld. If nothing new had appeared on the legal horizon of Andhra Pradesh this writ should have been dismissed. But, the legislature of Andhra Pradesh passed A. P. Act No. 9/1977, with effect from 21/01/1977. This Act exclusively deals with the topic of resumption of Government lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor subject to the condition of in alien ability and lays down a new policy of restoration of the assigned lands to the land-less poor which is diametrically opposed to the policy of resumption contained in the above G. O. Ms. No. 1142. The question that now arises is whether after the passing of the aforesaid Act No. 9/1977, the aforesaid G. O. Ms. No. 1142 dated 18-6-1954, still continues to be valid and operative in relation to the resumption of lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor under the above G. O.