ABDUL KHAYOOM Vs. M R O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 1-6-1987 passed by the first respondent resuming Ac. 4-00 of land in Survey No, 283/13/2 of Mannanoor Village to the- Government under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act/1977.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that his father purchased Ac.4-00 of land in S.No.283/13/2 of Mannanoor Village in the year 1958 under an unregistered sale deed for valuable consideration under the bona fide impression that the said land is not an assigned land. On the application of the father of the petitioner, the Tahsildar of Achampet had validated the sale under the provisions of Section 50(B) of the A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 after conducting enquiry and issued validation certificate in his proceedings dated 12-3-1965. During his life time, the father of the petitioner was in possession of the land and after his death the petitioner is continuing in possession and is cultivating the same. The petitioner received a notice dated 5-9-1987 from the first respondent addressed to his father, asking him to show cause why he should not be evicted from the land on the ground that the transfer in favour of petitioner's father is in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as 'the A.P. Act No.9 of 1977'. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he and his father are landless poor, that they purchased the land under the bona fide impression in the year 1958 before the commencement of the A.P. Act No.9 of 1977 and that the sale has been validated under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in the year 1965 itself. The grievance of the petitioner is that without conducting any enquiry as to whether he and his father, during his life time, were landless poor when the land was purchased under the bonafide impression, the first respondent passed the impugned order stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not convincing.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no enquiry is conducted to find out whether the petitioner's father was a landless poor at the time of purchase and whether he was a bonafide purchaser or not. He further contended that if the enquiry had been conducted prior to passing of impugned order, it would have been clear that the petitioner's family was landless and that the sale transaction is saved by the exception under Section 3(5) of the A.P. Act No.9 of 1977.