K DATTAIAH Vs. TAHSILDAR HAYATHNAGAR TALUK HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises in this writ petition is what is the correct procedure to be followed while resuming the land and taking possession by the State under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act IX of 1977. The petitioners, four in number claimed to have purchased the property under different sale deeds in the years 1970, covered by Survey No.66 of Masoorabad village. East Hyderabad District. The further case of the petitioners is that their vendor one Mirza Mohd Safdar was a political sufferer and the land was assigned to him and patta was also mutated in his name and after paying valuable consideration, the petitioners purchased the property and were enjoying the same since then. A notice was issued to the 1st petitioner on 9-1-1981 by the Tahsildar, Hayatnagar to show cause why the land should not be resumed as the conditions of assigning the lands are violated by him. The notice reads as if the 1st petitioner to whom the show cause notice was issued was himself the assignee. A reply was submitted by him stating that the land was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 27-9-1978 from Mirza Mohd. Safdar who was a pattader and after his purchase patta was transferred in his name and hence the question of violation of conditions of assignment does not arise. Thereafter the impugned order dated 20-1-1981 was passed holding that the purchase by the petitioners is in contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act IX of 1977 and consequently the land in his possession is liable to be resumed and the Revenue Inspector, Saroornagar circle was instructed to take over the possession of the land in question under the Government custody by conducting a panchayatnama and send compliance report . The said order was challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is two fold. Firstly ths provisions of Act IX of 1977 have no application as the petitioners' vendor was a political sufferer and not an assignee as a landless poor and secondly even assuming that the proceedings for eviction under Act IX of 1977 are maintainable, the procedure contemplated under ths said Act is not complied with, and the proceedings for eviction are opposed to the principles of natural justice and are liable to be interdicted.

(3.) Regarding the first question reliance is placed upon the very assignment in favour of the petitioners' vendor dated 5-4-1961 which does not show that the assignment is on the basis that he was a political sufferer. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it was averred that the assignment was made under the Normal Loani Rules in the year 1961 and the vendor is not a political sufferer and generally the political sufferers are assigned Acs. 10-00 of land and these proceedings do not disclose that the assignment was made to the vendor of the petitioners as a political sufferer. As the order of assignment itself does not show that the assignment was made in favour of Mirza Mohd. Safdar as a political sufferer it is unnecessary for me to go into the question whether the assignment made to political sufferer can be the subject matter of enquiry and resumption under Act IX of 1977. Hence, l am proceeding on the basis that the proceedings under Act IX of 1977 are valid. The impugned order discloses that the provisions of the Act are attracted. The only question is whether the impugned order was passed in accordance with law. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Gangadhara Rao and Jeevan Reddy, JJ while construing Sec. 3 of the Act ruled in V C Kondayya vs. District Collector' W.G. (1980 (2) A.P.L.J. 423) that: