A SHANKARAIAH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MEDAK DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein were assigned Ac. 1.00 each in Survey No. 49 of Pothreddypally Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District in the year 1978. It is stated that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the respective lands assigned to them from the date of assignment. While so, the Mandal Revenue Officer Sangareddy-2nd respondent herein issued notices dated 10.3.1999 alleging that the petitioners failed to cultivate the lands and calling upon them to show-cause as to why the assignments should not be cancelled. It is stated that though the petitioners submitted explanations denying the allegations made in the show-cause notice, no further orders were passed. However, long thereafter the petitioners were served with the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 3.4.2001 calling upon to handover the land in their possession on the basis of the order dated 16.3.2001 said to have been passed by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. This Court while directing rule nisi, by order dated 5.9.2002, granted interim suspension of the 2nd respondent's order dated 3.4.2001.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, the Tahsildar, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District filed a counter-affidavit stating that since the assignees did not bring the assigned land under cultivation, the show-cause notices dated 10.3.1999 were issued. Since their explanations were not convincing, the resumption orders were passed by the 2nd respondent on 3.4.1999 and pursuant thereto, the possession of the land was also taken over under panchanama dated 8.4.1999. It is further stated that the land under resumption was proposed for alienation in favour of the A.P. Housing Board and A.P. Tourism Department and accordingly, the District Collector by order dated 14.3.2001 directed to handover the advance possession of Acs. 2.00 cents of land to the A.P. Tourism Department and Acs. 4.00 cents of land to the A.P. Housing Board. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Inspector handedover the respective lands to the above departments. Thus, it is contended that the assigned lands were resumed and were handedover to the Government Departments following due process of land.

(3.) The A.P. Tourism Development Corporation Limited, which got itself impleaded as the 4th respondent, filed a counter-affidavit stating that they were put in possession.