GADDAM MADUSUDHAN REDDY Vs. CHEIF COMMISIONER OF LAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE ancestors or predecessors-in-title of the petitioners, as the case may be, have acquired the entire land in Survey No. l of Oduru Village, Nellore District, admeasuring Acs. 452. 30 cents, through purchases, that took place in the years 1935, 1944 and 1956, from the previous owners. Their rights and title over the land were recognized throughout, and the lands were shown in favour of the petitioners in the declarations filed under the A. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. Consequent upon the enactment of the A. P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'), pattadar pass books were also issued to the petitioners, sometime in the year 1981. This was followed by issuance of title deeds, under that Act.

(2.) ONE of the canals of Telugu Ganga Project is planned to pass through Oduru Village. An extent of Acs. 5. 00 of land in Survey No. l was affected. In the course of determining the method of handing over the Effected lands to the Irrigation Department, the Joint Collector, Nellore, the 3rd respondent herein, felt that no compensation need be paid for the land in Sy. No. l. When petitioners insisted on payment of compensation, he directed the Sub-Collector, Gudur, the 4th respondent, to cancel the pattas of the petitioners over the said land, on the ground that the entire land in Sy. No. l is Inam. The 4th respondent obediently submitted a report, staling that no ryotwari pattas were granted, in favour of the petitioners, in respect of the land in Sy. No. l, under the A. P. (A. A.) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Inams Act'), and prayed for necessary action. The 2nd respondent initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, and issued notice to the petitioners.

(3.) THE petitioners contend that there is nothing on record to disclose that the land in Sy. No. l was notified under Section 3 of the Inams Act, or that any proceedings were initiated under the said enactment. They contend that, out of utter prejudice against the petitioners, the 3rd respondent had issued the orders, in violation of the relevant provisions of law, and all norms of adjudication.