C MALLAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that considering their social status being landless poor and recognizing that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.2-50 cents each in Survey No. 395/D1 of Abdullapuram village, Velgodu Mandal, Kurnool District, the Government assigned the said extents in favour of the petitioners through patta in R.Dis.No.249/DIR/1409, dtd. 5/4/2000 and their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued to them for their respective extents of lands. The 3rdrespondent- Joint Collector, Kurnool, basing on the complaint said to have been made by the 6threspondent, cancelled the assignment pattas granted in favour of the petitioners, vide orders in R.C.E2/790/2004, dtd. 2/4/2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred statutory appeal before the 2ndrespondent-The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration vide Appeal No.BCW1/80/2017 on 22/5/2017 and questioning the inaction of the 2ndrespondent in taking up the appeal, the petitioners filed W.P.No.19185 of 2017 and this Hon'ble Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 2ndrespondent to take up the appeal and to pass orders on the stay application. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent vide orders dtd. 24/1/2019 dismissed the appeal justifying the action of the 3rdrespondent-joint collector in cancelling the assignments and further directed the 3rdrespondent to enquire into the matter. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order dtd. 24/1/2019, the petitioners preferred this writ petition.

(2.) The 5threspondent-Tahsildar, filed counter, denying the averments of the petition inter alia contending that the land in an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in Survey No.395/D1 was originally assigned to one Madiga Pedda Gajjalu vide R.Dis.No.181/DAR/1377, dtd. 20/10/1967 by the then Independent Deputy Tahsildar, Atmakur, considering his eligibility and by following the procedure and the said Madiga Pedda Gajjalu had been in possession and enjoyment of the said land and continued cultivation upto 1993 and thereafter the said land was erroneously assigned to one Nagamani @ Nagamma on 8/9/1993 and the said Nagamani relinquished her patta in favour of the petitioners, who are her close blood relatives, and accordingly, the petitioners got D pattas irregularly and erroneously, without there being cancellation of the original D-patta and the second D- patta. It is further stated that, the 6threspondent, who is son of Madiga Pedda Gajjalu, on behalf of all the successors filed objection for cancellation of irregular assignments and the Joint Collector, Kurnool, who is competent to decide the issue under B.S.O. 15(18), after verification of connected records, cancelled the irregular D-pattas granted to the petitioners and the Tahsildar was directed to restore the said land to legal heirs under Sec. 4(b)(ii) of the P.O.T. Act, 1977 and the appeal preferred by the petitioners assailing the orders of the Joint Collector was also dismissed directing the Joint Collector to enquire into the sale agreement executed by the original assignee Madiga Pedda Gajjalu in the year 1993 by violating the conditions of assignment and delivering possession of the land by him to one Thulasanna and whether the family members of the original assignee has land in excess of the limit under the provisions of BSO and A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act and further directed the Tahsildar to restore the land to the legal heirs of the original assignee. The impugned orders came to be passed, after giving opportunity to both the parties and the same needs no interference and prayed to dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) The 6threspondent filed counter denying the averments of the writ petition, inter alia contending that, the original assignee borrowed amount from one G.Tulasanna and the said Tulasanna obtained the signatures of the original assignee at the time of lending the amount and created an agreement of sale and later he managed to get assignment in favour of his daughter Nagamama in respect of the land assigned to his borrower and later the said Nagamma sold the assigned land to the writ petitioners and thereafter the petitioners got assignment of the above said land to an extent of Ac.2-50 cents each. The 3rdrespondent, on the representation made by the 6threspondent, conducted enquiry and in exercise of powers conferred on him under BSO 15(18), cancelled the assignment made in favour of the petitioners vide proceedings Rc.E2/2790/2004 dtd. 22/4/2017. The orders passed by the 3rd respondent were confirmed by the 2ndrespondent in revision and so also by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Vijayawada in appeal. It is further stated that the petitioners are not eligible for assignment, since their husbands are working as Executive Officer in Endowment and conductor in APSRTC respectively. The second assignment made to Nagamani and the subsequent assignment made to the writ petitioners is irregular and erroneous, without cancelling the original assignment made to the original assignee Madiga Pedda Gajjalu. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has considered the material available on record in a right perspective and came to the right conclusion in dismissing the appeal and the same does not require any interference of this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.