B BHOOMARAJAM Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner a political sufferer was assigned Acs. 10.00 of land in S No.805 of Medchal Village on 27-10-1967. On 3-10-1990, the Revenue DivisionaJ Officer, Hyderabad, East Division, issued a show- cause notice as to why the assignment in his favour should not be cancelled as the land assigned is within the reserve forest area and is covered by the ban, as per G.O. Ms. No.1122 Revenue (Q) Department, dated 29-6-1961, prohibiting assignment of such land. Petitioner sent a reply that the land assigned to him is not in Forest, as it was deleted by G.O. Ms. No.20 dated 18-1-1963 from forest area and since he spent a huge amount for developing the land assignment in his favour cannot be cancelled. No action seems to have taken thereafter in pursuance of that show-cause notice.

(2.) Subsequently, on 9-7-1996, the District Revenue Officer, Rangareddy District, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, as to why the assignment of land made to him should not be cancelled, for which the petitioner sent a reply on 2-9-1996. By his proceedings dated 16-12-1996 the District Revenue Officer cancelled the patta granted to the petitioner on the ground that the land assigned falls within the ban area as per G.O.Ms.No.1122 Revenue (Q) Department, dated 29-6-1961, and as no relaxation or approval from the Government was obtained by the then Tahsildar, Medchal, before assigning the land in favour of the petitioner. Questioning the said order of cancellation, petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who remanded the case to the Joint Collector (1st respondent) for de novo enquiry. After an enquiry, 1st respondent by his proceedings No.E5/1007/ 91, dated 20-5-2000, impugned in this petition, ordered cancellation of the patta granted to the petitioner on two grounds i.e. (i) petitioner did not suffer imprisonment for six months, and (ii) assigned land is within the belt area, covered by prohibition from assignment as per the Government Memo No.5079/D2/67-2, dated 5-1-1968 Revenue (Q) Department read with G.O. Ms. No.1122 Revenue (Q) Department, dated 29-6-1961.

(3.) The main contention of Sri Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is that since the show-cause notice was issued under Section 166-B of Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli, nearly about 30 years after the assignment and since suo motu power of review is expected to be exercised within a reasonable time as held in Yamunangar Co-operative House Building Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1997 (4) ALD 359 (DB), following the ratio in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav, AIR 1969 SC 1297, and Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangam v. K. Suresh Reddy, 1996 (2) ALD 945 = 1996 (2) An.W.R. 511 (D.B.), confirmed by the apex Court in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangam v. K. Suresh Reddy, (2003) 7 SCC 667, 1st respondent exercising suo motu power to cancel the patta granted to the petitioner is unsustainable. It is his contention that since G.O. Ms. No.1110 dated 26-5-1960, imprisonment for any term is sufficient, the assumption of the first respondent that imprisonment for six months is a condition precedent for a political sufferer being eligible for grant of a patta, is not correct and in any event since the Government Memo No.5079 Q2/67-2 dated 5-1-1968, relied on by the 1st respondent for cancelling the patta of petitioner is subsequent to the assignment made in his favour, cancellation of the assignment basing on such subsequent memo is improper.