Posted On by &filed under Andhra High Court, High Court.


Andhra High Court
E. Karunakar Reddy vs Mandal Revenue Officer, Triupati … on 17 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001 (1) ALT 400
Author: V Eswaraiah
Bench: V Eswaraiah


ORDER

V. Eswaraiah, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Assignments.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the order of the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati made in D.Dis.No. 1304/99 dated 3-6-2000 confirming the order of the 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Rural Mandal passed in Roc.A/50/98 dated 5-3-1999.

3. The petitioner submits that the land in an extent of Ac. 2-38 cents bearing S.No. 494-3 situated at Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal was purchased by his grand-mother late Smt. E. Ramamma by a registered sale deed on 1-9-1969 from the allottee of the said land, who was a landless poor. The petitioner submits that at the time of purchase of the said land, his grandmother late Smt. E. Ramamma was also a landless poor, and therefore, there is no prohibition under Section 3(5) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. As per the said Act, if the assigned lands are purchased by the persons, who are not landless poor, the said transfer will be in violation of the said Act, and therefore, the Government cannot resume the said lands. In the instant case, it is the assertion of the petitioner that at the time of the purchase, Late Smt. E. Ramamma is a landless poor and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural Mandal also clearly stated in his order that no lands were registered in her name.except the present land and if that be so, she was a landless poor, and therefore, the said land cannot be resumed by the respondents. But, it is stated by the Mandal Revenue Officer, which was upheld by the Revenue Divisional Officer, that the family members of the petitioner are having certain lands. But, it is not specific as to whether the said lands were acquired subsequent to the purchase of the lands, i.e., after 1-9-1969, and whether there was a joint family of late Smt. E. Ramamma as on the date of the purchase, and these points have not been dealt with by the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer.

4. It is the specific contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that late Smt. E. Ramamma was a landless poor, and in similar facts and circumstances, this Court allowed W.P.No. 2594 of 1987 on 19-4-1990 directing the same Mandal Revenue Officer to consider the case of the petitioner in that writ petition which was favourably considered. But, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner herein in the light of the said judgment as well as the Government Memo No. 5101/81/76-1 dated 6-3-1979.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural Mandal made in ROC.A/50/98 dated 5-3-1999 as confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati in D.Dis. 1304/ 99 dated 3-6-2000 are set aside and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry in the light of the above observations and pass appropriate orders after giving the opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law. It is open to the petitioner to raise all other legal contentions and the same may be considered by the Mandal Revenue Officer after giving a reasonable opportunity and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of No costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.217 seconds.