D GANGADHAR Vs. CH CHAKKARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal raises a question regarding the scope and ambit of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (A.P.Act.No.9 of 1977), hereinafter referred to as "the Act". One Mr.Dasari Obulesu was assigned with government land of Ac.4-16 cents in S.No.524-2 situated at Nyamaddala Village of Anantapur District on 21-10-1955. He died later. On the ground of violation of conditions of grant, the same was resumed by the government on 6-7-1982, and was re-assigned to the 1st respondent. In the year 1988, an application was filed by the widow of late Dasari Obulesu, namely, Smt. Dasari Anjinamma, that the assignment was made in favour of her husband; that after his death, she succeeded to his rights; that when she sought for mutation of her name in the revenue records, she came to know that the land was resumed, but nevertheless, the land had been in her possession and that herself and her sons and daughters being heirs are entitled for the said properties and that the daughters having been married, the sons are living with her and requested for the transfer of the said land in her favour duly cancelling the subsequent assignment made in favour of the 1st respondent. The same was entertained by the 2nd respondent herein i.e. the Mandal Revenue Officer of Chennekothapalli Mandal and after making enquiry, by his orders dated 24-3-1989 passed in R.Dis.755/88,he set aside the resumption made in favour of the 1st respondent on the ground that the said resumption was made without serving a notice on the earlier assignee or his heirs and that the 1st respondent is not resident of Nyamaddala Village or its hamlets. So holding, he sought to restore the land to the heirs of late Dasari Obulesu purporting to be under Section 4(b) of the Act.

(2.) The same was challenged by the 1st respondent by filing W.P.No.13817 of 1989 and a learned single Judge of this court had accepted the contentions of the 1st respondent that not only the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent was without notice to him, but also was without jurisdiction, as being outside the scope and purview of the Act amd consequently, the impugned order was set aside, hence, this appeal.

(3.) Mr. G.Krishna Murthy., the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends that the order of the learned single judge is erroneous; that the learned single judge ought to have seen that the original assignment made in favour of late Mr. Dasari Obulesu in the year 1955 was not liable to be cancelled; that the resumption by the State in the year 1982 was without notice to either Dasari Obulesu or his heirs and as such, the order of the learned single Judge should be set aside. Of course, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent supports the argument of Mr. G.Krishna Murthy. But, Mr. O.Manohar Reddy, the learned counsel for the 1st respondentdefends the order of the learned single Judge on the ground that correct scrutiny of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, as also the Act, was made by the learned single judge and that there is no error committed in setting aside the orders of the 2nd respondent.