ORDER
1. In this writ petition, a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order is sought declaring the action of the respondents in resuming the land to an extent of Ac. 5.20 cents situated in Survey No.223/1 in Munimadugu village, Penukonda Mandal, Ananthapur District without paying compensation as illegal and a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner for the resumption of the said land as per G.O. Ms. No.1307, dated 23-12-1993 is also sought by the petitioner.
2. One B. Govindappa was assigned the Government lands to an extent of Ac. 5.20 cents in Sy.No. 223-1 of Munimadugu village, Penukonda Manal of Anantapur District way back in the year 1960. Since then, till the death of said B. Govindappa, he was cultivating the said land. B. Govindappa died in the year 1985 leaving behind tlie present petitioner B. Adinarayana Murthy as his sole legal heir. The petitioner being the legal heir of late B, Govindappa started cultivating the said lands with the help of hired labour under his supervision as he secured a job in the State Road Transport Corporation.
3. While so, on the basis of a report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Penukonda, the second respondent issued proceedings on 27-5-1995 in Rc. No. 389/ 95(B), resuming the lands which are enjoyed by the petitioner as a legal heir of late B. Govinappa who is the original assignee,
subject to payment of compensation as per G.O. Ms. No. 1307, Revenue (Assignment I) Department, dated 23-12-1993.
4. Petitioner states that before resuming the land under his occupation by the second respondent, a notice was issued to him pursuant to which he appeared before the appropriate authority and as the lands were resumed for the purpose of providing house-sites to weaker sections of the society, he gave his consent to part with the said land subject to payment of compensation. Petitioner further states that during the life time of his late father, the lands were cultivated by him and after the death of his father, he got the lands cultivated by engaging labour. Petitioner also states that after the demise of his father, patta pass-books were also issued to him on 28-12-1994 in his name. Petitioner further states that he obtained loan on the said land from Anantapur District Central Bank Limited in the year 1989. Petitioner states that the conditions of assignment were not violated neither by his late father nor by him. Yet, petitioner complains that the second respondent resumed the lands through the impugned proceedings dated 27-5-1995 as if there was a violation of the conditions of assignment, which according to the petitioner, is factually incorrect.
5. Petitioner complains that though the lands were resumed by the respondents promising to pay compensation to him in terms of G.O. Ms. No.1307, dated 23-12-1993 but so far no compensation is paid to him and such inaction on the part of the respondents in not paying compensation to him necessitated him to move this Court invoking the extraordindary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate direction as indicated above.
6. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents which is sworn in by one
Sri Gangaram, Mandal Revenue Officer, Penukonda Mandal – Second respondent in the writ petition. In the counter, it is fairly admitted that the lands in question were assigned to the father of the petitioner late B. Govindappa in the year I960. However, the second respondent staled that as the houseless poor of Munimadugu village represented to him for providing house-sites, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Penukona was asked to make enquiry to find out suitable land for the purpose of providing house-sites to them. According to the second respondent, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Penukonda, after making enquiry found that the lands in Survey No.223/1 in an extent of Ac. 5.20 cents which were assigned to the father of the petitioner were found fallow and suggested that the said lands could be resumed by the Government for providing house sites. The second respondent after examining the issue and by following the due procedure, resumed the lands to the Government for providing house-sites to the houseless poor persons and recommended to the Collector, Anantapur District – first respondent herein for payment of ex gratia to the legal heirs of the original assignee. However, the District Collector, Anantapur – first respondent after examining the entire issue refused to pay ex gratia to the petitioner holding that the original assignee – late B. Govindappa who died in the month of July, 1985 did not cultivate the lands and his only son the petitioner herein is working as conductor in State Road Transport Corporation at Hindupur which is outside the jurisdiction of the lands. On this ground, the first respondent ordered that no compensation shall be paid to the petitioner.
7. The respondents have also stated in the counter that the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation in terms of G.O. Ms. No.1307 Revenue (Assignment-1) Department, dated 23-12-1993 as he has not lost his livelihood as a result of resumption of the lands by the Government.
8. Petitioner has raised two questions before this Court, viz.,
(1) Whether the respondents are legally entitled to resume the lands in the year 1995 on some flimsy grounds which were originally assigned to late B. Govindappa who is the father of the petitione in the year 1960?
(2) If so, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation for such resumption by the respondents in terms of G.O. Ms. No.1307 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 23-12-1993?
9. The Andhra Praesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No.9 of 1977) is an enactment which deals with the assignment of Government waste lands to the landless poor persons. Section 3 of the said Act imposes certain prohibitions for transferring the assigned lands. Section 4 of the Act provides for consequences for breach of the provisions of Section 3. For our purpose, Section 4(1) of the Act is relevant and it is traced as under:
(1) If in any case, the District Collector or any other officer not below the rank of a Mandal Revenue Officer authorised by him in this behalf, is satisfied that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3, have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, he may, by order-
(a) take possession of the assigned land, after evicting the person in possession in such manner as may be prescribed; and
(b) restore the assigned land to the original assignee or his legal heir, or where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the laud to such assignee or legal heir, resume the assigned land to Government for assignment to landless poor persons in accordance with the rules for the time being in force:
Provided that the assigned land shall not be so restored to the original assignee or his legal heir more than once, and in case the original assignee or his legal heir transfers the assigned land again after such restoration, it shall be resumed to the Government for assignment to any other landless poor persons.
10. The above provisions brought out under Section 4(1) of the Act provides that even if the conditions of assignment are violated and the assigned lands are sold to third parties by the assignee, even in that extreme situation, the appropriate authority shall resume the lands from the third party and restore it to the original assignee or his legal heirs as the case may be. It is not the case of the respondents that the original assignee has sold the assigned lands to third parties in violation of the conditions of assignment. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it is indicated that when houseless poor persons of the Munimadugu village represented to the second respondent for providing house-site partas to them, an enquiry was made through the Mandal Revenue Inspector of Penukonda who inspected the said village and its surrounding areas and found that the lands which were assigned to late B. Govindappa who is the father of the petitioner, were fallow and made a proposal to resume those lands by the Govenment. It is also clear from the counter that as a result of the death of the father of the petitioner, a notice was issued to the petitioner being the legal heir of his later father B. Govindappa and pursuant to such notice, the petitioner made his appearance before the appropriate authorities on 20-5-1995 and gave his consent to the Government for resuming the lands for providing house sites to the weaker sections subject to payment of compensation. This assertion made in the counter clearly indicates that the petitioner who is the legal heir of late B. Govindappa – the original assignee, had only given no objection for
resumption of the lands by the Government subject to payment of compensation to him according to the rules in force.
11. However, it is the case of the respondents that the lands in question were not cultivated and found fallow at the time of inspection of the Mandal Revenue Inspector and therefore, when the lands were not used for the purpose for which they are assigned, i.e., for agricultural purpose, such non-use of the assigned lands would amount to violation of one of the terms and conditions of the assignment and as such the Government is entitled to resume the lands in question.
12. As seen from the narration of facts, the lands in question are originally assigned to late B. Govindappa, father of the petitioner in the year 1960. The impugned proceedings to resume those lands were issued by the second respondent in the month of May, 1995. In the counter filed by the respondents, mention is made about the poor landless persons of Munimadugu village making representation to the second respondent for providing house-sites to them and the Mandal Revenue Inspector of Penukonda making enquiry and finding the lands in question being fallow. Thereafter, it is indicated in the counter that notice has also been issued to the petitioner, pursuant to which he appeared before the appropriate authorities on 22-5-1995 i.e., five days before issuing the impugned resumption proceedings. All these factors indicate that these steps including the visit of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Penukonda to Munimadugu village must have taken place somewhere in the year 1994 onwards which ultimately led to the issuance of the impugned resumption proceedings on 27-5-1995. The father of the petitioner admittedly, died in the year 1985. Petitioner has categorically mentioned that having secured a job in the Road Transport Corporation and having put up his family in Hindupur town which is about
20 to 25 kms., from Munimadugu, is getting the lands cultivated under his supervision by hiring labourers and once in a week he used to oversee the cultivation work.
13. The question, therefore, would be whether the respondents are competent to resume the lands on some grounds after nearly 35 years from the date of assignment ie., 27-10-1960?
14. Though in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the Mandal Revenue Inspector of Penukonda Mandal inspected the lands in question and found them to be fallow and on that basis recommended to the Government to resume those lands, it is not mentioned in the counter that on which date the Mandal Revenue Inspector of Penukona Mandal has inspected the lands.
15. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that once the lands are assigned to weaker sections of the society, irrespective of the period from the date of assignment, the State is entitled to resume the lands for public purpose. Justifying this stand, he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1082. I do not think this submission is tenable inasmuch as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision cannot be made applicable to the set of facts of this case. In the said decision, the Government land was encroached and the Supreme Court held that the Government is entitled to take possession of such land from the unauthorised occupants irrespective of the length of time from the date of such occupation. In this case, admittedly the lands were assigned by the Government to late B. Govindappa who is the father of the petitioner in the year 1960. The petitioner being the legal heir of his late father is enjoying the said land since the demise of his father. Nearly after 35 years from the
date of assignment, an attempt is made by the respondents to resume the lands by issuing the impugned proceedings under the guise that the said lands have been kept fallow and no agricultural activity is carried on it. It shall be remembered that the Government porambok lands which are converted into agricultural lands, owing to the failure of monsoon, remain fallow when no alternative irrigation facilities are available. The vagaries of monsoon are very well seen in Anantapur District which is one of the most drought prone districts in the Country. Therefore, even if the lands are found fallow at the time of inspection by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, it may be on account of failure of rainfall and the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector cannot be the sole basis to resume the lands as the authorities have no knowledge about the local climatic conditions to reach to a conclusion that the lands are kept fallow and not being cultivated.
16. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, the second respondent stated that the District Collector – first respondent has refused to grant compensation in terms of G.O. Ms. No.1307, dated 23-12-1993 on the ground that the lands are kept fallow. Probably, the first respondent is not aware of the factual position of that area and he would not have made enquiries satisfying himself that all these 34 years the land was not used for the purpose for which it is assigned i.e., for agricultural purposes. It is, therefore, difficult for this Court to assume that for all these 34 years the lands were not cultivated and were kept fallow. The power of resumption though available has to be exercised by the authorities within a reasonable time. I do not think the authorities are empowered to exercise such power after a long lapse of 34 years on flimsy grounds. If the contention of the respondents that the State is entitled to resume the assigned lands after any length of time from the date of assignment, is accepted, I must say that the respondents have no respect for
the rule of law and the respondents have closed their eyes and not prepared to look to the ground realities.
17. Though the Act No.9 of 1977, the Legislature desired to help the landless poor persons by assigning the Government waste lands to them. This measure is intended to achieving the objective of ensuring social justice to all citizens of the State. Such an objective could be achieved if the State administrative machinery evinces interest and carries out the objectives. If the administrative machinery of the State remains in its “dream-world” and assume certain powers which are not available to it, the only suffers of such maladminisirative acts are the poorer sections of the society. Even if the power of resumption is available to the authorities, such a power cannot be exercised after a lapse of 34 years.
18. On this ground alone, I must say, the power of resumption of assigned lands cannot be extended beyond a reasonable period, in any event, not later than five to six years. Even within five to six years when the power has to be exercised, there must be necessary inspection by the authorities on the basis of which a decision to resume the lands be taken preceding a notice to the parties concerned. Section 4(1)(b) of the Act envisages that even if there is violation of certain terms and conditions by the assignee the land shall be restored to the assignee or his legal heirs as the case may be and if there is a violation of the terms of assignment for the second time, it would be open to the authorities to resume the lands. I have, therefore, no hesitation to say that the respondents have no authority to resume the lands after long lapse of more than 34 years on some flimsy grounds. The first question is answered accordingly.
19. However, admittedly, as the lands in question have already been resumed by the respondents for providing house-sites to
the weaker sections of the society, such lands cannot be restored to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner shall only be entitled to get compensation for such resumption.
20. The question, therefore, would be whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation in terms of G.O. Ms. No.1307, dated 23rd December, 1993 for resumption of his lands by the Government. The respondents have mentioned in the impugned resumption proceedings that the petitioner is entitled for compensation in terms of G.O. Ms. No.1307 dated 23-12-1993. A Full Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Collector, Vizianagaram v. P. Peda Chinnayya, has considered various decisions on this issue elaborately rendered by either learned single Judge or by Division Bench and held that the assignee are entitled to compensation. In the penultimate paragraph of the said decision the Full Bench has held thus:
“In a case where the patta lands are resumed by the Government, the assignees cannot claim compensation under the Act, but can claim compensation equal to the market value of their interest in the land, subject to the clog. In such cases, no solatium may be payable but interest may be claimed on the amount of compensation from the date of dispossession and till the date of payment of compensation. In a case where the assignees are dispossessed from their patta lands without resuming the lands in terms of the grand and/or initiation of proceedings under the Act, the Government may be directed to initiate proceedings under the Act and to pay compensation under the Act as indicated.”
21. Thus, it is clear that payment of compensation to the assignees is accepted by rule of law. The respondents are
undoubtedly guided by the rule of law and they cannot be in the illusion that the rule of law has no application for their acts. Since the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O. Ms No.1307 Revenue (Assignment-1) Department, dated 23-12-1993 relating to payment of compensation to the assignees whose lands are acquired for public purposes, I do not think, the respondents can deny payment of compensation to the petitioner in terms of the said G.O. The lands have been resumed by the respondents pursuant to the impugned proceedings in Rc.No. 389/95 (B) on 27th May, 1995. Since then, the petitioner has been knocking at the doors of various revenue authorities including the respondents. As a last resort, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition seeking compensation for such resumption of his lands by the Government, in the year 1998. We are at the fag end of the year 1999. Since the date of resumption of the lands of the petitioner by the Government i.e., 27-5-1995, more than four years been consumed and yet the petitioner is not able to get any compensation which he is entitled to in terms of G.O. Ms. No.1307, dated 23-12-1993. I, therefore, direct the respondents to grant necessary compensation to the petitioner in terms of G.O. Ms No.1307 dated 23-12-1993 for resumption of his lands to an extent of Ac.5.20 cents situated in Sy.No. 223/1 in Munimadugu village of Penukonda Mandal, Anantapur District, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
22. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No Costs.
