APHC010556552014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN WRIT PETITION NO: 9254 OF 2014 RAO Between: A. Siddamma, D/o. Chinnabba, aged about 62 Pallam Post. Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District. years, Chinthalapalem Village ...Petitioner AND 1. Government of A.P, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Land Hyderabad. 3. The Joint Collector, Chittoor District at Chittoor. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. 5. The Tahasildar, Yerpedu Mandal. Yerpedu. Chittoor District. represented by its Principal Secretary (Revenue) Administration, Andhra Pradesh at ...Respondents of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court pleased to issue an Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution may be more particularly one appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the herein pertaining to his records of the 2nd respondent proceedings No.BCW2/264/2010, dt.06.05.2013 confirming the orders of the 5th respondent - Tahasildar in D.Dis.A/374/2007, of the RDO in appeal in ROC.G/502/08, dt.04.06.2007 and the orders dt. 11.11.2009 and the proceedings of the 3rd respondent - Joint Collector in D.Dis.(E4)/264/2010 dt.23.03.2010 and to quash the same holding that they are illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without proper application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice JA NO:1 OF 2014(WPMP 11592 OF 20141: Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue an interim direction suspending the orders of the 2nd respondent i;: proceedings No.BCW2/264/2010, dt.06.05.2013 confirming the orders of 5th respondent Tahasildar in D.Dis.A/374/2007, dt.04.06.2007 and the orders the RDO in appeal in ROC.G/502/08, dt.11.11.2009 and the proceedings of the 3rd respondent - Joint Collector in D.Dis.(E4)/264/2010 dt.23.03.2010 during the pendency of this Writ Petition in of lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to receive the counter copies above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: record by allowing the leave petition in the on AP'riC010556552014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9254/2014 Between: A.siddamma, D/o.chinnabba ...PETITIONER AND Government Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE ( i The Court made the following order: r The petitioner was assigned Ac.5.00 of land in Sy.No.399/2 of Chinthalapalem Village, vide DKT patta No.279/4/97, dated 26.06.1988. This patta came to be cancelled by the Tahsildar, Yerpedu, vide proceedings No.D.Dis.A/374/2007, dated 04.06.2007, on the ground that the petitioner had violated two conditions of the patta, namely, non-cultivation of the assigned land and not residing in the village. Aggreived by the said cancellation, the petitioner had filed O.S.No.336 of 2007 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikalahasthi, which came to be dismissed on 30.04.2008 t i 2 RRR,J W.P.No.9254of2014 permitting the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum against the cancellation proceedings. Thereafter, an appeal had been filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, who dismissed the said appeal, by an order, dated 11.11.2009. Aggreived by the same, the petitioner moved a revision petition before the Joint Collector. Chittoor. This revision was dismissed by the Joint Collector, Chittoor, by an order, dated 23.03.2010, in proceedings No.D.Dis(E4)/264/2010. Aggreived by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner again moved the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (AP). The Chief Commissioner, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application of the petitioner vide CCLA proceedings No.BCW2/264/2010 dated 08.05.2013. Aggreived by the order of the Chief Commissioner of Administration, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. Land 2. Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Chief Commissioner had held that the petitioner had been cancelled on two grounds, namely, the petitioner had brought the land into cultivation within three residing in the village. The learned counsel would submit that issue is concerned. DKT patta of the not years and that she was not as far as the first the Chief Commissioner, after considering submissions of the petitioner, had held in favour of the petitioner and had given a findibg that the petitioner was cultivating the said land. The learned the counsel woud submit that the Chief Commissioner had erred in holding that the DKT patta was cancelled on account of the petitioner was not residing in 3 ttv- RRRJ W.P.No.9254of2014 the same village. The learned counsel would submit that no such condition is attached to any assignment patta and the only requirement is that the petitioner should have been residing in the village at the time of assignment. He would contend that there can be no restriction on the right of the petitioner to move about freely in India as any restriction would be a clear violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 19 (1) (d) (e) of the Constitution of India. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents would contend that the Joint Collector had taken into account an additional factor. He would submit that the Joint Collector had specifically held that the family of the petitioner was holding Ac. 14.00 of land and that the husband of the petitioner is a medical doctor due 3. to which the petitioner would fall outside the definition of “land less poor set out under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of persons Transfers) Act, 1977. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would contend that this aspect was not considered by the Chief Commissioner and would still remain as a bar for assignment of land to the petitioner. 4. Heard both sides. In view of the finding of the Chief Commissioner that the petitioner was in enjoyment of the land, the first ground of cancellation of the patta would not survive. 5. 4 RRR, J ■ W.P.N0.9254 of 2014 6. As far as the second ground is concerned, there is no condition stipulating that the petitioner cannot leave the village forever and that any such change of residence would automatically result in cancellation of the patta. Even if such a condition was to be applied, the same would be clearly violative of Article 19 (1) (d) (e) of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the subsequent movement of the petitioner from the village cannot be a ground for cancellation of the patta. As far as the question of whether the petitioner’s family owned Ac. 14.00 of land at the time of grant of patta and whether the petitioner would qualify as a land less poor person for assignment of land are questions which would remain open even if this Writ Petition is to be allowed. 7. In such circumstances, keeping in view the fact that this Writ Petition has been pending for the past 11 years, it would be appropriateto dispose of this Writ Petition by setting aside the order of the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, dated 08.05.2013 and remanding the matter back to the Chief Commissioner only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the family members of the petitioner were owners and in possession of the aforesaid Ac.9.00 of land (in as much as Ac.5.00 of land assigned and the patta has been included to calculate Ac. 14.00). The Chief Commissioner would also go into the question of whether the husband of the petitioner was a medical doctor whose income was sufficient to raise the petitioner above the 8. financial limits which define land less poor persons. 5 RRR,J W.P.No.9254of2014 Needless to say, it must also be mentioned that the holding of the 9. assignee at the time of assignment should be taken into account and any subsequent assignment of land cannot be treated to be a disqualification for continuing to hold assigned land. Any such view would run counter to the entire policy of the Government to assist persons below poverty line to raise themselves and to assure a bright future for themselves and for their children. In view of the long standing dispute, there shall also be a 10. direction to the Chief Commissioner to dispose of the proceedings before him within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VENU GOPAL RAO ASSISTANT registrar: //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER SI To, 1. The Principal Secretary (Revenue), State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. The Joint Collector, Chittoor District at Chittoor. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. The Tahasildar, Yerpedu Mandal, Yerpedu, Chittoor District. One CC to SRI K SARVA BHOUMA RAO Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. gsg HIGH COURT DATED: 20/06/2025 ORDER I !! Aue m r Current Section . WP NO. 9254 OF 2014 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS