APHC010514672017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 29001/2017 Between: 1. CHINTHAPALLY ANAND SAGAR,, S/O. C. ANAND RAO, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.28-5-441-2A, AP HOUSING BOARD COLONY, ANANTAPUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DEVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. Sri Rage Yellamma W/o Rage Obulesu. 6. Sri Rage Pothulayya S/o Rage Obulesu. 7. Sri Rage Venkatesulu S/o Rage Obulesu. 8. Sri Rage Eashwarayya S/o. Rage Obulesu. 9. Sri Rage Sudhakar S/o. Rage Obulesu. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction challenging the orders vide Rc.No.424/2017, Dt.19.08.2017 passed by the 4th respondent in resuming the petitioner's land in Sy.No.300-2 to an extent of Ac.5-50 cents situated at Kurugunta Village, Anantapur Mandal, Anantapur District without assigning any valid reasons as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP 4558 OF 2017 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 vacate the interim orders dated 29.08.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.36075 of 2017 in W.P.No.29001 of 2017 and dismiss the above Writ Petition with exemplary costs and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 36075 OF 2017 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 suspend the orders vide Rc.No.424/2017, Dt.19.08.2017 passed by the 4th respondent by restraining the respondents from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Sy.No.300-2 to an extent of Ac.5-50 cents situated at Kurugunta Village, Anantapur Mandal, Anantapur District pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble ourt may deems fit just and proper in the ircumstances of the case. IA NO: 3 OF 2017(WPMP 46998 OF 2017 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 implead the Proposed Respondents as Respondent no.5 to 9 in Writ Petition No. 29001 of 2017 including the miscellaneous Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA 3 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. HARISH KUMAR RASINENI 2. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP) 3. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 4 The Court made the following Order: The land, to an extent of Ac.5.50 cents, in Sy.No.300-2 of Kurugunta Village, Anantapur Mandal and District, was originally assigned to one Sri A. Rama Naidu, who is said to have sold this land to one Sri G.C. Baba Prasad, who in turn sold this land to R. Obulesu, in the year 1969. Subsequently, this land was resumed from R. Obulesu, on the ground that he had purchased assigned land and the same is prohibited under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. On the basis of these findings, the land was resumed by proceedings, dated 27.10.1994, by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Ananthapuram. Aggrieved by the said order, Sri R. Obulesu filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuramu, which came to be dismissed on 19.05.2000, observing that the Mandal Revenue Officer is competent to resume the assigned lands. After the dismissal of the said appeal, the land is said to have been assigned to the petitioner herein, by way of the proceedings dated 04.11.2000. Sri R. Obulesu, by then, had filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Ananthapuram. This revision came to be dismissed on 16.02.2012. Thereafter, Sri R. Obulesu again filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuramu, assailing that assessment order issued in favour of the petitioner herein. In pursuance of the Orders passed in this revisional order, the notices were issued to the petitioner to show-cause why the land assigned to him should not be resumed. After the receipt of this show-cause notice, the petitioner had filed his explanation. After receipt of the 5 explanation, the Tahsildar, Ananthapuramu, passed the impugned order, dated 19.08.2017, resuming the land assigned to the petitioner. 2. The Tahsildar, Ananthapuramu, had took the view that the original assignment of the land to the petitioner, on the ground that he was a surrendered naxlite, was not based on correct facts. The Tahsildar took the view that the petitioner had merely helped his brother, who was a surrendered naxlite and that the activities of the petitioner, as set out in the explanation of the petitioner, does not make out a case that the petitioner had undergone as a naxlite and had surrendered in terms of the policy of the State for rehabilitation of such surrendered naxlites. The Tahsildar also took the view that the land assigned to the petitioner was not under cultivation and as such, there is a violation of the conditions of assignment, which had been set out under the G.O.Ms.No.1142, Revenue, dated 18.06.1954. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of resumption, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 4. The erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, had granted an interim protection to the petitioner, by way of an Order, dated 29.08.2017. The said protection continues till date. 5. A perusal of the Order of the Tahsildar would show that the land assigned to the petitioner was resumed on the grounds that there were two violations of the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.1142. Firstly, that preference 6 should be given to the villagers where the land is situated and secondly, the land, so assigned, should be brought under cultivation within three years. 6. A perusal of the explanation given by the petitioner, would show that he worked in the frontal organizations of the outlord naxlite organization. In such circumstances, it would be difficult to hold that the petitioner was not a naxlite who had surrendered to the State. Further, no attempt has been made by the Tahsildar, to obtain any information from the police authorities, who will have a clear-cut view as to the petitioner was a surrendered naxlite or not. The finding of the Tahsildar that the petitioner was not a surrendered naxlite is not based on material available with the Tahsildar and as such, the said finding would have to be set aside. 7. The second ground on which the Tahsildar had resumed the land was the non-cultivation of the land by the petitioner. Here again, the Tahsildar arrived at this finding without any material being available. The finding that the petitioner was not cultivating the land appears to have been arrived on the basis of information that is said to have been given in local inquires. The Tahsildar specifically mentions a videograph which is said to have been submitted by the petitioner showing that the land had been ploughed. This videograph was rejected by the Tahsildar on the grounds that it is not clear as to whether the land had been ploughed by a tractor or otherwise. 8. The finding of the Tahsildar that the petitioner was not cultivating the said land, as stated above, is not based on any clear material except a vague reference to local inquiry. Apart from this, the petitioner had relied upon 7 the evidence of a Junior Assistant working in the office of the Tahsildar, in O.S.No.431 of 2011, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. In this suit, the said Junior Assistant had been confronted with the adangal for the fasli year 1410 onwards as well as for the years 1420 & 1421 that is 2011-2012. The Junior Assistant had specifically admitted that the petitioner was not in possession of this land and that his name was being shown in the adangals, from the year 2004 onwards, as the possessor of the said land. 9. The requirement under G.O.Ms.No.1142, was that the land should be brought under cultivation within three years since the land was assigned in the year 2000, the petitioner would have to bring the land under cultivation by 2003. There is no mention of what transpired between 2000 & 2003, in the order of the Tahsildar. In fact, it would not be possible for any person to go into such an issue in the year 2017, inasmuch as there would be no physical evidence or calculation or otherwise that may have been conducted between 2000-2003. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the Tahsildar had been passed without any cogent material being available and is not based on any clear finding of violation of the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.1142, Revenue, dated 18.06.1954. 11. For these reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order of resumption, dated 19.08.2017, issued by the 4th respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. 8 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. Date:31-10-2025 BSM 9 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Writ Petition No.29001 of 2017 31-10-2025 BSM