K LAMBODARA NAIDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he is in possession and enjoyment of land over an extent of Ac.1 -04 cents in Survey Nos.112/5 -A, C and D of C.Ramapuram village, Kammapalli mandal (now Ramachandrapuram mandal), Chittoor district, and was running the business of poultry and cattle feed shed under the name and style of Sri Venkateshwara Poultry and Cattle Feeds Unit since 1989. The petitioner made an application seeking alienation of the said land in his favour and he was prepared to pay the market price. As a matter of fact, his case was recommended to the Government by the respective authorities and a valuation report also was prepared and submitted by the Tahsildar on 03.03.2008. However, the District Collector passed an order on 12.11.2013 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that alienation of lands is banned in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposal of the petitioner seeking to alienate the land in his favour was in the year 2008; whereas the policy of non -alienation of lands within 2 KM of Mandal Headquarters came to be introduced only in the year 2012 by way of the said G.O. In that view of the matter, the said G.O. cannot be made applicable to the petitioner and as such the rejection of the petitioners application is totally illogical and he prays for a direction to the respondents to reconsider the same.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader opposes grant of any relief in the writ petition and he submits that it is not the date on which the proposal was recommended, but it is the policy and application of the terms of the current policies by the competent authority alone are relevant as the competent authority is required to take into consideration the extant policy and not the policies which were existing earlier. He further submits that the land policy in the changed circumstances on account of the State Reorganization is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government and, at any rate, even by virtue of the G.O.Ms.No.571, the request of the petitioner to alienate the subject land in his favour cannot be considered and the District Collector rightly rejected the application as it is the Government which is empowered to change the policy. In that view of the matter, the learned Government Pleader submits that the writ petition does not deserve any consideration.