PATAKAMURU DAMODAR PRASAD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are brothers. They are assailing the orders of the 1st respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh, issued in Memo No. 19373/Assn. IV (1) /92-22, dated 10-10-2001, confirming the orders dated 1-4-1992 of the 2nd respondent-Chief Commissioner of Land Revenue. Be it noted that initially the 5th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, passed orders dated 28-6-1983 resuming the land assigned to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners obtained the land by misrepresenting that they are landless poor persons, and the said orders were confirmed by the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows. The petitioners made separate applications to the Tahsildar, Kanekal, Anatapur District, seeking assignment of land which was declared as surplus under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act')- By proceedings in D.A.No. 559/86, dated 7-12-1987, the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioners were temporarily assigned a extent of Ac. 5-00 and Ac. 4-00 of land comprised in Sy.No. 36-1A and Sy.No. 36-1B of Raketla village, respectively, subject to any appeal or revision against the said assignment. Be it noted that admittedly the petitioners sought assignment of surplus land stating that they are residents of Raketla village, that they are landless poor persons and that they have no other source of income. Be it also noted that the assignment inter alia is subject to certain conditions, namely that the assignee shall pay to the Government a sum calculated at fifty times the land revenue in fifteen annual instalments, that the assignee shall cultivate the land personally, and that the assigned land shall not be alienated. It is the case of the petitioners that pattas were granted to them in the year 1977 itself, but the land owner (declarant) who held surplus land under the Act did not allow the petitioners to take possession of the land till September, 1981. Be that as it may, the 5th respondent vide his proceedings dated 28-6-1983, resumed the land assigned to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are not residents of Raketla village. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an appeal before the 4th respondent, who in his order dated 13-8-1984 noticed that the Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners was not in a position to explain the case precisely, but only pleaded cancellation of the resumption orders issued by the Tahsildar. Nonetheless, the 4th respondent, upon verifying the record and also on noticing that his predecessor vide proceedings dated 19-10-1982 ordered resumption of the land for breach of the conditions of assignment, observed that under Para 37(4)(iii) of BSO 15 the Mandal Revenue Officer can resume the assigned land. The 4th respondent noticed the following circumstances against the petitioners:

(3.) The 4th respondent on the premise that the petitioners failed to produce any evidence in support of their contention that they are landless poor persons, that they are in possession and enjoyment of the assigned land, and that they obtained the assignment by misrepresentation, confirmed the orders of the Tahsildar dated 28-6-1993.