UPPU PANDAIAH Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER SYDAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 1988 of 1986 dated 4-3-1986.

(2.) The essential facts which may be mentioned briefly for the purpose of this writ appeal are as follows : The writ petition was filed by the petitioner in respect of the land ad-measuring ac. 3-40 cents in S.No. 601 /1 of Changanam Village, Sydapuram Revenue Mandal, Nellore, district against the proceedings in Rc.No. B. 1401/85 dated 14-2-1986 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sydapuram (first respondent) cancelling the patta granted to the petitioner earlier as an assignee of the said land. The petitioner claims to be a member of the Backward Caste and is a landless poor person who had been eking out his livelihood as an agricultural labourer. The Tahsildar, Rapur assigned an extent ac. 3-40 cents of dry land in S. No. 601 /1 of Chaganam village about 25 years back and since then the petitioner had been cultivating the said land by spending amounts of his own. It seems he raised a lemon-garden in an extent of ac.0-50 cents and the rest of the land is being used for raising dry crops. The case of the petitioner is that due to his indigent conditions he was forced to execute a registered sale deed dated 9-12-1980 in favour of one N. Syamalamma (the second respondent) for a consideration of Rs. 3,400/- in connection with the said land. As a result of the alienation of the land by the petitioner, he received a notice dated 22-10-1985 issued by the first respondent as to why the patta of the said land should not be cancelled and the land be resumed by the Govt. The petitioner submitted his explanation through his counsel and admitted the execution of the registered sale deed, but requested the first respondent to restore the land in question to him under the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act IX of 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by evicting the vendor from the said land. Nevertheless the first respondent passed an order impugned in the writ petition cancelling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner and directed the Village Assistant to submit the proposals for the assignment of the said land to some other landless poor person. Since the proceedings had become final, the petitioner challenged the proceedings so issued by virtue of a writ seeking a direction to declare the said orders as illegal and to restore the land to the petitioner.

(3.) The learned single Judge, after an elaborate discussion of the matter, held inter alia that the terms of the grant of the land in favour of the petitioner require him to hold the land for purpose of cultivation and to eke out his livelihood from it. Since the petitioner had violated the terms of the grant without any justification, the authorities would be justified in refusing to restore possession to him of the land originally assigned in his favour and to assign the land to some other eligible landless poor in the village. The learned single Judge, while deciding the matter, relied upon two decisions of this Court. In the decision of a Division Bench reported in V. China Kondayya v. Dist. Collector, Eluru, AIR 1981 AP 62, he relied upon the observations made therein to substantiate the contention that the possession of the land need not be given to the petitioner. He also relied on the decision of a single Judge reported in T. Onnuramma v. Tahsildar, Kadiri, AIR 1980 AP 267 for arriving at the conclusion that the cancellation of patta and resumption of the land by the Govt. is not assailable.