GADE RAMULU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR SRIKAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Six petitioners-residents of Mukundapuram village, Srikakulam District are aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent dt. 23-10-1990 declaring the acquisition of land by the petitioners from the original assignees in violation of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act'), as null and void and consequently ordering their ejectment from the lands and restoration to the assignees as also the orders of the 2nd and 1st respondents affirming the aforesaid order of the 3rd respondent in appeal and revision by the orders dt. 18-2-1991 and 2-12-1991 respectively-seek certiorari on a plurality of grounds but substantially on the following:

(2.) A brief overview of the background facts is necessary: The State of Andhra Pradesh assigned small extents of lands in favour of Gunapa Simmadu, Mandarada Garikayya, Vaddi Narayya and Gunupu Simmanna in 1924 and 1939. It is the petitioners' case that their respective fathers purchased these lands from the assignees in 1952 and 1953 and since then their fathers and thereafter, the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands. It is asserted that the purchasers were landless poor as on the date of purchase from the original assignees. After these general assertions, in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the purchasers did not possess any land in the years 1952 and 1953. While so, the legal representatives of the initial assignees filed O.S.No. 188 of 1989 on the file of the Jr. Civil Judge, Rajam against the petitioners for perpetual injunction in respect of the lands in question and obtained ad interim injunction on 20-9-1989 which was however eventually vacated in May, 1990.

(3.) Thereafter, proceedings under the Act were initiated by the 3rd respondent by the issuance of a show-cause notice on 9-5-1990. This notice stated that the grant of patta was in favour of the named original assignees; sensitized the notice that the patta was heritable but not transferable and that the lands would be resumed by the State without payment of compensation. The notice asserted that it had come to the notice of the 3rd respondent that the addressee has purchased the assigned land from the assignee, that the said act constitutes violation of Section 3(2) of the Act, the transaction is null and void and that the addressee is also consequently liable for penal action under Section 8 of the Act. The notice also stated that the Government had decided to resume the land since it is required by the Government for its own use. The notice gave the addressee an opportunity to file a representation by the specified date failing which the land in question would be assigned to the original assignee after resumption to the Government free from all encumbrances. The petitioners assert to have filed their objections on 2-6-1990 to the effect that they purchased the land in question from the vendors about 40 years back and to have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land ever since.