MEDIPALLY PETAIAH PAPAIAH Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land admeasuring Acs. 16.92 cents of Elimenedu Village in Ranga Reddy District was owned by one Smt.Mankhala Radhamma. She filed a declaration being C.C.No.I/3508/75 under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act, for brevity). As she was determined to be surplus holder, land admeasuring Acs. 16.92 in survey No.307 was taken possession by the Government, as per the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad East Division. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam (MRO), assigned the said land to the petitioners by proceedings dated 18.6.1979. Petitioners 1 to 6 were assigned an extent of Acs.2.00 each whereas seventh petitioner was assigned an extent of Acs.4.92 cents. The petitioners allege that they have taken possession of the land and cultivated the land for about fifteen (15) years. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Rangareddy East Division, however, issued proceedings dated 26.10.1996 cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioners and directed to restore the land to the declarant Radhamma. This writ petition is filed seeking invalidation of the proceedings of the RDO, the first respondent herein. A counter affidavit is filed by the RDO sustaining the impugned proceedings. It is stated that aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 12.10.1975 declaring her as surplus landholder, Radhamma filed appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which affirmed the order of the primary Tribunal. The declarant, thereafter, filed C.R.P.No.4645 of 1980 before this Court. By order dated 14.9.1982, this Court remanded the matter to primary Tribunal. After remand, the primary Tribunal passed orders on 24.6.1983 determining Radhamma as non-surplus holder of agricultural land as on the notified date. Thereafter, she filed a petition before the RDO to restore the possession to her in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 16.92 cents. In response thereto, the MRO was called upon to submit a report. When the matter was pending at that stage, Radhamma filed a writ petition being W.P.No.13782 of 1994 and this Court disposed of the same directing the first respondent to expedite the disposal of the application filed by Radhamma for restoration of possession. The matter was then referred to the District Collector, who directed the RDO to take action for resumption of the land from the petitioners. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and they did not file any objections. In view of the same, the impugned orders were passed directing restoration of the land to the original declarant and that the MRO, restored the possession of the land to the declarant in the prescribed Form-XI on 04.11.1996.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that when the land has been in possession of the petitioners pursuant to the assignment made by the MRO in 1979, it would be arbitrary for the respondents to cancel the assignment with a view to restore the land to the original declarant under the provisions of the Act. He would submit that in such a situation, the RDO has to allot alternative land to the original declarant without disturbing the assignees or transferees of the surplus agricultural land.

(3.) This contention is refuted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) by placing reliance on Rules 10 and 10A of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (the Rules, for brevity). Section 14 of the Act deals with disposal of land vested in the Government. Be it noted that after determination of the surplus land, the declarant has to surrender the land to the Government, as per Rule 8 of the Rules. Be it also noted that when once the land is surrendered, or is deemed to have been taken possession, the land absolutely vests in the Government free from all encumbrances (See Section 11 of the Act). Such land which vests in the Government shall have to be allotted for use as house sites or for agricultural purpose or for other purposes ancillary thereto. The transfer or assignment of such land shall be subject to the conditions as enumerated under Rule 10(4) of the Rules. Any violation or contravention of such conditions attracts penal consequences provided under Rule 10(5) of the Rules. There is no dispute about this legal position. Further, when the land is transferred under Section 14(4) of the Act read with Rule 10 of the Rules to landless poor persons either for agricultural purpose or for house site, while the case of the declarant found to be surplus holder is pending before the Tribunal or High Court, what would be the position if ultimately the Tribunal or High Court holds declarant as a non-surplus holder? Initially, when the Rules were promulgated in 1974, there was no provision to deal with such a case.