IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT f. r ir I lO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6140 OF 2020 Between: Smt. Y. Bharathi, W/o. Y. Siva Reddy, aged about 52 Years R/o. H.No. 11-1-71, Arvinda Nagar, Ananthapuram. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Ananthapuram District, Ananthapuram. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. 4. The Tahsildar, Ananthapuram Mandal, Ananthapuram District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the impugned respondent in RC.No.E3/2086/2019, dated nd resumption orders of the 2 27.01.2020 in resuming the lands allotted to the petitioner to an extent of Ac.9-91 Cents in Survey No.503/2, 503/5, 503/12, 503/16, 503/15, 503/19, 503/14, 503/18, 504/5, 504/6, 503/1 and 503/4 of Alamur Village, Ananthapuram Mandal and District vide Proceedings in E3/1822/2007, dated 06.08.2007 and payment of the market value as reported by the 4th respondent in RC.No. B/818/2007, dated 20.03.2008, though petitioner has not violated Eny conditions by simply saying that RC.No. explanation is not convincing as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, ,^■‘21;,and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the resumption orders of the 2"^^ respondent. Wn6: 1 of 2020 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 grant stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the lands allotted on payment of market value to an extent of Ac.9-91 Cents in Survey No.503/2, 503/5, 503/12, 503/16, 503/15, 503/19, 503/14, 503/18, 504/5, 504/6, 503/1 and 503/4 of Alamur Village, Ananthapuram Mandal and District by suspending the impugned resumption orders of the 2nd respondent in RC.No.E3/2086/2019, dated 27.01.2020. 'i lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Ananthapuram District, Ananthapuram. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. 4. The Tahsildar, Ananthapuram Mandal, Ananthapuram District. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS AND Smt. Y. Bharathi, W/o. Y. Siva Reddy, aged about 52 Years R/o. H.No. 11-1-71, Arvinda Nagar, Ananthapuram. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 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 granted on 16-03-2020 in WP. 6140/2020 and dismiss the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K.BHAGAT SINGH, ASST.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER 4 APHC010101932020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6140/2020 Between: Smt. Y. Bharathi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K RATHANGA PAN I REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Bhagat Singh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Challenging the proceedings of the 2"^^ respondent 2. dated 27.01.2020 resuming the lands alienated in favour of the petitioner on the ground of violation of conditions of alienation wz., non utilization of f 2 alienated lands in terms of G.O.Ms.No.57 Revenue (ASSN-I), dated 16.02.2015 and on the pretext of utilizing the lands for providing house site pattas of the scheme v/z.,'Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki lllu’. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner has applied to the 2^^ respondent for alienation of lands on payment of market value for 3. extracting gravel boulders and to establish a crushing and screening plant for the purpose of building road from Bangalore and Hyderabad, from the point of Garladinne to Gollapalli Village. The 2"''respondent, accordingly after obtaining reports from the RDO and the Tahsildar accorded permission to the Tahsildar for giving advance possession of the lands in an extent of Ac.9.84 cents in Sy.Nos.503/2, 503/5, 503/12, 503/16, 503/15, 503/19, 503/14, 503/18, 504/5, 504/6, 503/1 and 503/4 of Alamur Village, Ananthapuram Mandal and District on payment of market value of Rs. 16,500/- per acre to the petitioner. The Tahsildar was requested to collect the market value before giving possession of the lands and submit alienation proposals. Accordingly, Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 20.03.2008 reported to the Collector, the receipt of the payment and further informed that the possession was also given to the applicant. Thereafter, the empowered committee in its meeting has recommended for enhancement of market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. For approval of the cabinet sub-committee, the issue was kept pending. 3 4^ However, the 2'^'^ respondent issued show cause notice to the 4. petitioner, referring to the proceedings of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P, asked the petitioner to show cause as to why the alienation proposals made in her favour should not be cancelled. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted her reply stating that in compliance to the alienation made, she had used the land for extraction of gravel for laying road, and she further submitted that the gravel is still being used for maintenance and upkeep of the said road. She further submitted that since the Collector has referred the matter to high power committee, and the committee has fixed the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- without finalizing the same, issuing show cause notice by the RDO proposing to withdraw the alienation,is not justifiable. It is contended that the 2"*^ respondent has however, passed the impugned order without referring to the objections filed by the petitioner. 5. It is further contended by the petitioner that after issuance of show cause notice without passing any orders on the said show cause notice the respondents have forcibly attempted to take possession of the land at that stage, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.3552/2020 dated 11.02.2020. After filing of the said writ petition, the respondents have affixed the impugned orders at the premises of the petitioner. i 4 The 2^^ respondent filed his counter stating that the Joint 6. Collector has conducted inspection and reported that the subject lands are in possession of the petitioner and the land is quarried long back and not levelled up and the same is kept un utilized, and if suitable machinery is engaged, the land can be utilized for issuance of house site pattas under the Navaratnalu-Pedalandiriki lllu”. Since the Government has scheme viz., authorized the District Collectors to resume the utilized lands that were alienated in favour of private individuals on the grounds of violation of conditions of alienation or non utilization of alienated lands. It is further stated that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.57 Revenue (ASSN-I), dated 16.02.2015, the subject lands may be utilized for issuance of house site pattas. It is further stated that the Government has not approved the proposal made in the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rathangapani Reddy 7. argues that the Collector after having granted alienation in favour of the petitioner by after fixing the market value and after receipt of the same, ordering cancellation of the alienation is unsustainable, having regard to the fact that on the directions of the Collector the RDO/Tahsildar verified and the fixed the valuation of the property at Rs. 16,500/- per acre. And the same was accepted by the Collector. However, the high powered committee had recommended for enhancement, the petitioner was willing to pay the enhanced amount, recommended by high powered committee which was 5 Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre, but the same was kept pending by the authorities since then. In the meanwhile, impugned proceedings were issued, on alleged » ground that the petitioner did not put to use, the lands. He argues that the G.O.Ms.No.57 Revenue (ASSN-I), dated 16.02.2015, has no application to the facts of the present case and it would not apply retrospectively. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of A.P. and another Vs. Maharshi Publishers Pvt. Ltd. and others^ The learned Assistant Government Pleader, Sri K. Bhagat Singh 9. would contend that the petitioner has not been using the land and has violated the conditions of alienation, therefore, the authorities have rightly passed the impugned order. Considered the rival submissions. 10. It is evident from the impugned order and the show cause notice that, to procure lands for the distribution of house sites, the respondents have proceeded in a hasty manner, resumed the subject lands for alleged violation of conditions of alienation, taking support from the report of the Joint Collector, who had reported that the lands appeared to have been quarried long back and not levelled and kept unutilized. He further reported that if the same is levelled up, it can be utilized for house site pattas. The respondents left the * ^ 11. (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 95 6 procedures to the winds to meet their targets fixed for land pooling for assignment. Even going by the Joint Collector's report, it is not their case that the petitioner did not utilize the land. The report of the Joint Collector says that the land was quarried long back and not leveled up; from the same, it cannot be concluded that the land was not utilized for the purpose, it alienated. The second ground on which the land was resumed is that the land was allotted in favour of the petitioner was not approved by the Government, which is not a valid ground in as much as, the G.O., under which the land is alienated in favour of the petitioner mentions that the competent authority for grant of land up to 10 acres is the Collector. As noted from the G.O., under which the land is alienated, it appears that once the alienation is made by the Collector in accordance with the procedure, the same is not further subjected to approval of the Government. In the said situation, the observation of the authorities that the alienation of the subject lands has not been approved by the Government would not arise, and such a ground would not constitute a valid ground in the facts of the present case to cancel the alienation. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of the 2"^ respondent dated 27.01.2020. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. 7 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The District Collector, Ananthapuram District, Ananthapuram. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. The Tahsildar, Ananthapuram Mandal, Ananthapuram District. One CC to Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. gi HIGH COURT DATED:28/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.6140 of 2020 15 MAR 2C25 g! . Current Section ml' -1^" 'IV- a: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS