V. VENKAT REDDY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 28/7/2006 passed in A.S.No.62 of 1999 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar, confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 25/3/1997 passed in O.S.No.169 of 1991 by the District Munsiff, Kalwakurthy.

(2.) The suit was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs seeking declaration that the initiation of proceedings in file No.B/2461/91 and order dtd. 2/12/1991 passed by the defendant No.2 (Mandal Revenue Officer, Amangal) as illegal and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from evicting the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. The appellants-plaintiffs contended that one Krishnama Charyulu, S/o. Narayana Chary was the original owner and pattedar of the suit land in Sy.No.1284 of 2002 to an extent of Ac.10-00 gts., situated at Mangalpalli hamlet of Amangal Village and Mandal. The fore-fathers of the plaintiffs were cultivating the said land. The plaintiffs purchased the suit land under private sale documents from the sons of Krishnama Charry. On the application of the plaintiffs, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Amangal took up the matter for mutation of patta in the name of the plaintiffs vide file Nos.ROR/32/1991 and 33/1991 to an extent of Ac.5-00 gts each in the name of the plaintiffs. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Amangal issued notices to the plaintiffs as well as the legal heirs of the original pattedars. As the plaintiffs did not pay the demanded amount to the legal heirs of the original pattedars, they filed a false complaint to the defendant No.2 with incorrect facts. On that, the defendant No.2 without any material initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, 'The A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act') alleging that the suit land was government land and it was assigned to late Krishnama Charyulu. The plaintiffs filed counters stating that the land in question was patta land and in the khasra pahani of 1954-55 itself, the name of the father of the vendor of the plaintiffs was recorded as pattedar to the suit land. The defendant No.2 suo-motto without any material after enquiry at the instance of the legal heirs of late Krishnama Charyulu held that the suit land was a government land assigned by the government before 1954 in favour of Krishnama Charyulu, without any material and passed orders on 2/12/1991 to deliver possession of the suit land to the government. The plaintiffs were challenging the said orders of the defendant No.2 as illegal on the following grounds:

(3.) The defendants 1 and 2 i.e., the District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar and Mandal Revenue Officer, Amangal filed written statements contending that the suit land was government land. Out of it, an extent of Ac.12-02 gts. was assigned to Sri Krishnama Charyulu prior to 1950-51 and therefore, the survey number had been sub-divided as 1284/02, to that effect a supplementary sethwar had also been issued by the survey and land records showing the assignee i.e., Krishnama Charyulu as land holder. The said fact was admitted by the sons of late Krishnama Charyulu, therefore, the suit land was not a patta land. The plaintiff had purchased the suit land through a private sale deed. After the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act had come into force, as per Sec. 3 of the said Act, alienations of government assigned lands was prohibited, therefore the alienations were void. The plaintiffs purchased the suit land which was an assigned land. Hence, they do not get any right or title over the suit schedule property. Therefore, defendant No.2 had initiated proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act for violation of Sec. 3 of the Act and passed orders resuming the suit land under Sec. 4 of the said Act. The Sethwar would vividly discloses that Sy.No.1284/2002 was a government land. The averment of the plaintiffs that the suit land was a patta land was a false claim. The order of the defendant No.2 dtd. 2/12/1991 passed in file No.B/2461/91 would lucidly elucidates the prehistory of the case. There were cogent grounds for resumption of the suit land and the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Amangal had taken the possession of the suit land into government custody on 4/12/1991 under the cover of panchnama. The suit land was vested with the government together with possession. Thus, the possession of the suit land had already been taken over by lawful means. The suit land so resumed was proposed for assignment free of cost to indigent landless poor, but the plaintiffs were putting hurdles and threatening the proposed assignees with dire consequences under influence and opposed granting of any injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. He further contended that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act and the suit was liable to be dismissed on the said sole ground. The plaintiffs were provided relief by way of an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the orders of the defendant No.2 under the amended provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act and prayed to dismiss the suit with compensatory costs.