ARJALA MANOHARA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in issuing notice to the petitioner calling upon him to file a fresh declaration under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973 (for short "the Act") is arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents not insist the petitioner to file a fresh declaration and not to take any coercive steps against him.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1960, the then Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam granted ryotwari patta in respect of an extent of Acs.115.80 cents of land in favour of his father, by name late Kondala Rao, under Section 11 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948") and since then the petitioner's family has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and they also alleged to have been paying taxes to the Government. Subsequently, after a long time the District Collector, Srikakulam, filed a revision before the Director of Settlements questioning the grant of ryotwari patta in favour of petitioner's father, but, the same was dismissed on 2.1.1971 holding that it was barred by limitation. However, on 5.2.1974, the Director of Settlements issued a notice to the father of the petitioner under Section 5(2) of the Act asking him to appear for enquiry on 23.2.1974 alleging that the patta granted in respect of the said land was without proper enquiry. Accordingly, the petitioner's father appeared ;and raised preliminary objections stating that as the earlier revision filed by the Collector has been dismissed by the Director of Settlements, he had no power to take up suo motu enquiry. However, without considering the objections, the Director of Settlements passed an order on 13.6.1974 negating the contentions of the petitioner's father. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner's father preferred a revision before the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, which was also dismissed by an order dated 1.6.1997. Questioning the same, the petitioner's father filed W.P. No.276 of 1977 before this Court and the same was also dismissed. Against the same, W.A. No.397 of 1978 was preferred and a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal holding that the suo motu power conferred on the Director of Settlements should be exercised within a reasonable time and that invocation of that power after 12 or 13 years is totally unreasonable and impressible. Challenging the same, the Government filed Civil Appeal No.3314 of 1981, before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on 13.8.1996, confirming the order of the Division Bench. Meanwhile, the petitioner's father died and the petitioner inherited the properties of his father. Subsequently, on 19.2.1997, the Land Reforms Tribunal issued a notice asking the petitioner to furnish fresh declaration and subsequently on 27.3.1997, the Joint Collector, Srikakulam, issued show-cause notice stating that if the petitioner fails to file declaration within seven days, prosecution would be launched against him under Section 24 of the Act. But, the petitioner submitted a representation on 7.4.1997 requesting the authorities to grant one month time to verify the records and submit explanation. However, without considering the said representation, the first respondent passed an order dated 21.4.1997 directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, Santhibommali, to launch prosecution against the petitioner, without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, but the same was dismissed, and questioning the same, the petitioner preferred C.R.P. No.2700 of 1997 before this Court, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the civil revision petition is not maintainable and only a writ is maintainable. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) A detailed counter is filed on behalf of the respondents stating that originally, the petitioner's mother, by name Smt. A. Chandramma, was the holder of the land in question, and the petitioner's father was only a General Power of Attorney Holder. But suppressing the said fact, the petitioner's father obtained ryotwari patta, which came to light in the year 1969 when the petitioner raised an objection for leasing off fishing rights in the land in question. Actually, the land in question is not arable and it is only saline land, which shall be used only for manufacturing salt. Hence, the same was never cultivated by any one from times immemorial. Therefore, granting of patta to the petitioner's father was not proper. As such, a revision was filed by the Government before the Director of Settlements in the year 1970, but it was rejected on 2.4.1972 on the ground that it was barred by time. But, the Director of Settlements took up suo motu enquiry to enquire into the validity of issuance of ryotari patta, and questioning the suo motu exercise of powers by the Director of Settlements, the petitioner's father carried the matter by way of revision, later filed writ petition and thereafter writ appeal, which was held in his favour. Though the Government preferred Civil Appeal, the Supreme Court also held in favour of the petitioner's father holding that suo motu powers shall not be exercised after expiry of 12 to 13 years. Meanwhile the petitioner's father died and his entire properties devolved upon the petitioner. Hence, it is mandatory on the part of the petitioner to file declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal under Section 18(1) of the Act in respect of the acquired land. Accordingly, a notice in Form III was issued on the petitioner on 19.2.1997 directing him to file declaration. As he did not file the same, a show-cause notice was issued to him on 27.3.1997. Instead of filing the declaration, the petitioner requested the Collector to grant one month time to file his daclaration However, as sufficient time was already granted to the petitioner and as it was only to delay the filing of declaration the representation was made, the first respondent rejected his representation and passed orders on 21.4.1997 directing to launch prosecution against the petitioner. Since the earlier dispute was with regard to the validity of exercising suo mutu revisional powers by the Director of Settlements, but not with regard to the issue as to whether the petitioner has to file a declaration or not, petitioner was directed to file a fresh declaration. It is concluded that the petitioner cannot question the order of the first respondent in directing to launch prosecution inasmuch as the Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the same without obtaining sanction from the Collector. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.