YERRANCHANI RAMAPPA REDDY Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an alienee from the transferee of land in question, which was originally assigned in favour of the second respondent under Darkasth Rules. As per the proceedings in R. Dis, No. 1147 /1986 dated 31-12-1988, the first respondent directed restoration of land to the assignee, the second respondent herein, which is assailed in this writ petition.

(2.) On Feb. 28, 1957 an exent of AC. 5-25 in survey number 13/1 in Kollalbylu village of Mandanapalie Revenue Mandal, Chittoor district was assigned in favour of the second respondent under Darkasth Rules. The second respondent alleges that while she was cultivating the land with the assistance of Mr. Gudla Chinna Reddeppa and Mr. G. Gopal Reddy, they obtained her signature on a sale deed dated 27-12-1963 misrepresenting that it was only a lease deed. The consideration for the said sale is alleged to be Rs. 150-00. Mr. Gudle Chinna Reddappa sold one half of the land in favour of one Mr. Yerrajanu Rami Reddy for a consideration of Rs. 2,000.00 on 6/03/1972. The State Legislation passed the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act'), which was gazetted on 28/03/1977 and came into force with effect from 21/01/1977. In exercise of the power under Section 3 of the Act, the first respondent passed the impunged order directing the restoration of possession of land in favour of the second respondent. It is the validity of this order that is challenged in the writ petition on the ground that before passing the impugned order, no show cause notice was served on the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted. It is further averred that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for consideration, that he is a small farmer and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act. On these contentions, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the impunged order.

(3.) The first respondent filed the counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner purchased the land from one Mr. Gudte Chinna Reddeppa for a sum of Rs. 2,000-00 on 6-3-1972 and that he ought to have ascertained whether the land was an" assigned land or patta, land, but he failed to do so. It is denied that no show cause notice was served on the petitioner. It is stated that notices were served thrice on the petitioner on 9-7-1988; 16-7-1988 and 1-8-1988. It is stated that a detailed enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order. It is also stated that the petitioner is not a landless poor, but an affluent rich person and it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.