N VENKATESA MUDALIYAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed praying for the issue of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 4 to 6 in cancelling the D-Form patta in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No. 13133 of 1995 and in favour of the petitioners' mother and father as illegal, violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of the Board Standing Orders and the Assignment Rules and also the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 1307, Revenue, dated 23-12-1993.

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner's mother/ Munemma was landless poor person and she was assigned D-Form Patta in respect of an extent of Ac. 5-00 dry land in Sy.No. 659/2 of Valasapalli village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District in the year 1955. Similarly an extent of Ac. 5-00 in Sy.No. 660 was assigned in favour of the father of the petitioner in addition to Ac. 1-69 cents in Sy.No. 659/2 in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No. 13133 of 1995. According to the petitioner's averments, the petitioner's father and mother were landless poor persons and therefore they made applications for assignment of the land and the Revenue authorities i.e., the then Tahasildar assigned the lands in question in their favour. Subsequently, they have spent huge amounts for bringing the lands under cultivation and they raised various trees, such as neem, ganuga and eucalyptus etc. Now the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) in cancelling the assignment and resumption of the land to the Government is illegal and unsustainable. It is also stated that when a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners, objections were filed before the MRO, objecting to the proposed resumption and therefore, the orders of resumption passed by the MRO are illegal and unsustainable and consequently the subsequent orders passed by the Sub-Collector, Joint Collector and the Commissioner confirming the said orders are illegal and unsustainable.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the action of resumption without fixing any compensation in respect of the lands resumed is illegal and liable to be set aside on that simple ground. The learned Counsel also contended that the Board Standing Orders under which the resumption has been resorted by the MRO, have no statutory force. Therefore the Board Standing Orders could not be relied upon for resumption of the land, which was assigned in favour of the petitioners and their parents about 35 years back. The learned Counsel also contended that the petitioners are entitled for fixation of compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or at least for the market value as on the date of resumption.