S ACHAYYA Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another reproduction of the strife-torn rural scene in India where different groups of landless poor persons thirsting for land, stake their claim and thereafter fight for possession of land Neighbourhood rivalries of small dimensions manifest at the initial stages. Caste and communal factors thereafter make their surreptitious entry and dominate the developments thereafter. Some effective intervention by the authorities would have diffused the crisis; but no such attempt was made. On the other hand the rivalries were allowed to develop into a major controversy which in no lime, led to a violent explosion. Four villagers belonging to a neighbouring village fell victims, because the local officials were either apathetic or unduly optimistic. They did not foresee the fatal possibilities which would emerge when persons in possession and others eager to share the spoils decide to fight it out. This lack of foresight prevented them from effectively intervening to avert the tragedy. After-acquired wisdom prompted the Mandal Revenue Officer/Magistrate later to pass the impugned order adopting the not-unusual device of dispossessing the rival factions of land which the petitioners had been in possession for over four decades and the rival group of villagers seeking to assert their claim. This will not shock any one in India today, because it happens as a routine exercise day after day.

(2.) 382 Harijans who are residents of Isukapalli village are the petitioners. They claim that over Ac. 100.00 out of Ac. 180.40 cents of land in survey No. 112 was occupied by them for over forty years. That land formed the tank-bed of an irrigation tank 'Badava Cheruvu'. The village was part of Pithapuram Jamin Estate. The adjoining villages are Nagulapalli Upparagudem and Gollaprolu. The task used to irrigate some of the lands in Nagulapally through Buthapalli tumu. Some time after construction of the tank, the Zamindar found that adequate water could not be stored therein for irrigation in Badavacheruvu. Therefore, he commissioned formation of an alternative irrigation canal known as 'Yelerusakha Gorrikandi' and by providing regulators in the canal at the beginning of Nagulapalli village, water used to be supplied to the lands of that village. Badava Cheruvu was therefore abandoned as an irrigation tank. During the rainy season, rain water was collected in some portions of the tank, but a large area of the tank-bed remained dry. The Zamindar used to permit residents of Gollaprolu and Isukapally villages to the western and Southern sides of the tank to raise commercial crops after the rains in the tank-bed. On the division of the estate, those villages were allotted to Gollaprolu Zamin B-Estate. The revenue records, however, continued to show the entire survey number as tank poramboke, though most of it was actually under cultivation continuously over the years. At the time of abolition of the estate, the forefathers f the petitioners approached the 1 st respondent for assignment to them of the lands in their possession. That request was rejected in proceedings L.Dis No. 25615 dt 26-1-1951. They and thereafter the petitioners continued in possession of the lands. Occasionally, the revenue department used to require them to pay penal assessments and they were paying such amounts. Petitioners assert that they continued in occupation of the lands with occasional requests for assignment. Once again the request was turned down on 13-8-1969. An attempt was made soon thereafter to assign the lands in favour of ex-service personnel. Petitioners submitted representations dt. 6-11-1969 in reply to the notices of the 1st respondent that they had been in possession of the lands since 1369 Fasti, and since the land was assignable, they were entitled to preference. The 1st respondent verified these claims with reference to the cist receipts and attachment notice issued by the 3rd respondent and cancelled the assignment in favour of ex-service personnel, with the result that petitioners continued in uninterrupted possession. On 30-1-1970, petitioners made individual representations seeking assignment in their favour in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 993 Rev. (B) Department, dt. 13-10-1969 in view of their long possession for over 20 years on payment of penal assessment But the Tahsildar, Pithapuram informed the petitioners in Memo.L.Dis.No.M. 988/70, dt. 15-2-1970 that the representations could not be considered as the land was not available for assignment. However, an extent of Ac. 3.00 on the western side of the tank was assigned to one Nadimpalli Varahalaraju of Isukapalli village. Some of the petitioners made representations to the 1st respondent on 4-10-1976 claiming assignment in view of the fact that part of the tank-bed had already been assigned to a political sufferer. Petitioners stated that respondents used to order notices under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act now and then, but the possession of the petitioners remained undisturbed. Petitioners once again submitted their representations on 6-9-1989. Those individual representations did not however, evoke any response.

(3.) According to the petitioners, the tables were turned on them after one Sri Anesetty Bullabbaiah Reddy was elected as M.L.A. in the elections held in November, 1989. The assertion is that a scheme to dispossess the harijans of Isukapally of their lands and to assign those lands to persons belonging to another community in the neighbouring village was planned after his election as M.L.A. Alerted by the efforts of the more affluent and politically influential people of Nagulapally village seeking to dispossess them, petitioners approached the respondents as well as the Superintendent of Police, seeking protection of their rights to possession of the lands in question. These efforts proved futile. Petitioners had, in the mean-time, raised paddy and fodder crops in the tank-bed. The rival group is also alleged to have raised fodder crops in a portion of that land from October, 1989. Tension was mounting in the villages in an anxiety of the petitioners to protect their possession and the crops which they had raised, and of their rivals in an eagerness to assert their claims to have atleast a share of the land. Petitioners were driven to the dire need of protecting their possession by use of force in the absence of any effective intervention by the Revenue or police authorities. The worst happened on 18-1-1990 at about 7.00 A.M. When about 200 persons armed with deadly weapons raided Isukapally village. The villages decided to fight back. Efforts for mediation made at the very last moment by the Head Constable of Police of Nagulapally outpost proved futile. The 95th petitioner therefore rushed to the Circle Inspector, Pithapuram about 4 K.Ms. from the village, requesting him to rush police force immediately to avert a violent and fatal clash between the two groups. It is stated that the Circle Inspector told him that there was a police party already in the village and that would handle the situation. By the time he returned to the village, violent clash had taken place resulting in fatal injuries to four persons belonging to Nagulapally village. As often happens, many villagers left their abodes fearing harassment and repression by the police. The Head Constable filed an F.I.R. which was registered as Crime No. 6/90 of Pithapuram Police Station. 125 villagers of Isukapally surrendered to the police and they were lodged in the central Jail, Rajahmundry, on 29-1-1990, as per the orders of the judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram. They were released on bail three months thereafter. In the meantime, the Mandal Revenue Officer, 3rd respondent herein, passed an order allegedly under Section 145of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 6-2-1990 impleading 20 named and 180 other residents of Patha Isukapalli, Upparagudem and Gollaprolu as 'A' party and 20 named persons and 180 others of Reddy and other communities of Nagulapalli village as 'B' party.