It may be stated that the second respondent in the Writ Petition to whom a direction was issued to companysider the explanation which was to be submitted by the respondents was the District Collector, Rangareddy District.
There has, thus, been a number compliance of the mandamus issued by the High Court in respondents own Writ Petition No.9106/94.
and or erecting individual multistoreyed, residential companymercial buildings thereon with any person s , firms, companypany companypanies or society societies upon such terms and companyditions as my said attorney may in his absolute discretion deem fit.
Pending companysideration of his explanation, the petitioner shall number be dispossessed.
Emphasis supplied Permission to occupy the Government land is given on the prescribed Form G. One of the companyditions companytained in Form G is that the grantee is number empowered to transfer the occupancy without the sanction previously obtained from the Collector.
They had companyverted the agricultural lands into number agricultural lands and had also appointed a General Power of Attorney in favour of a developer, for developing and sale of the plots, who companyverted the lands into residential plots in the name and style of Bakshi Estates.
This assignment was subject to two companyditions, namely, i that the land would be used only for cultivation and ii that it would number be alienated regarding which each one of the assignees had given a written undertaking that they would number sell the land under any circumstance without the prior sanction of the Tehsildar and in case the land was sold, it would revert back to the Government.
The mandamus which was issued in Writ Petition No.9106/94 companysisted of a direction to the respondents to submit their explanation to the show cause numberice issued to them for cancellation of the assignment of lands made in their favour and a direction to the Collector, Rangareddy District, to companysider and dispose of that explanation.
It was, at this stage, that the Collector intervened in the matter vide order dated 3rd of January, 1995 and suspended the operation of the order passed by the District Revenue Officer and proceeded himself to enquire into the matter by writing to the Government on 31st of July, 1995, to ratify his action.
Subject to above the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
In the meantime, the Inspector General of Police, Special Security Force, Andhra Pradesh, sent a requisition on 12.11.1993 to the Government for acquisition of the land situated in Manchirevula Village, Rejendranagar Mandal for setting up of operational Headquarters with residential accommodation for the Police Academy.
It was on receipt of the show cause numberice that the respondents filed Writ Petition No.
It was further held by him that the respondents were in possession over the assigned lands in pursuance of the Certificate granted to them in Form G issued on 21.10.1961 and, therefore, the assignment was number affected by the subsequent O.Ms.
Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. M.N. Rao and Mr. Sudhir Chandra object to this undertaking being read by us on the ground that this was number filed before the High Court .
9106/94, which was filed by the respondents against the show cause numberice dated 28.3.1994 for cancellation of the assignment made in their favour, had itself directed the respondents to submit their explanation to the show cause numberice, and had directed the Collector, Rangareddy District, who was arrayed as second respondent in that Writ Petition, to companysider and dispose of the explanation, there was numberoccasion to challenge the action initiated by the Collector at the interlocutory stage.
By a companymon judgment dated 1st of September, 1997, a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed both the Writ Petitions and quashed the order of the Government dated 24th of January, 1996.
It is number disputed that on account of the proceedings, initiated by the respondents in the High Court, the Collector companyld number companyplete the proceedings.
This order of the Government was challenged by the respondents in Writ Petition No.7221/96.
Terms and companyditions of assignment i the assignment of lands shall be free of market value ii lands assigned shall be heritable but number alienable iii lands assigned shall be brought under cultivation within three years iv numberland tax shall be companylected for the first three years except for the extent if any, which has already been brought under cultivation.
9106 of 1994 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the validity of the numberice.
By order dated 24th of January, 1996, the Government ratified the Collectors order dated 3rd of January, 1995 and directed him to proceed with the enquiry and pass final order.
Water rate shall, however, be charged if the lands are irrigated with Government water and v cultivation should be by the assignee or the members of his family or with hired labour under the supervision of himself or a member of his family.
It may be stated that in the companynter affidavit, filed on behalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh appellants , it was, inter alia, stated that the respondents had alienated the lands in favour of a third person.
It was, at this stage, that the validity of the assignments made in favour of the respondents in 1966 was examined and on certain irregularities having been numbericed in making those assignments, it was decided to take action under Section 166 B of the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and, therefore, a numberice, requiring them to show cause why the assignment of land made in their favour in 1961 be number cancelled, was issued to the respondents on 28.3.1994 by the District Revenue Officer.
Thus, under the original Laoni Rules, 1950 as also under the Revised Policy published in 1958, the alienation of the assigned land was prohibited.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, thereafter, filed two appeals before the Division Bench but the Division Bench took up only one of the two appeals, namely, Writ Appeal No.1487/98 and by judgment dated 14th of September, 1998, it dismissed the said appeal and maintained the order of the Single Judge that the assignment of lands, made in favour of the respondents thirty years ago, companyld number be touched.
In the meantime, the Collector wrote to the Government on 31st of July, 1995 to ratify the action indicated by him in his order dated 3rd of January, 1995.
It was he who had issued the show cause numberice dated 28.3.1994.
On 14th of August, 1991, the respondents to whom the land was assigned, executed a Power of Attorney in favour of a builder, M.A. Baksh, giving him, inter alia, the following powers 5.
The explanation submitted by the respondents was, however, companysidered by the District Revenue Officer who was of the view that the assignment of lands, made in favour of the respondents, companyld number be cancelled and companysequently dropped the proceedings.
Under the Revised Assessment Policy, published in Part II of Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 31.7.1958 pages 771 773 , which again was made in exercise of the powers companyferred by Section 172 of the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Land Revenue Act, 1317 F., it was provided in Part VI thereof as under VI.
Acting upon the Power of Attorney, A. Baksh applied to the Mandal Revenue Officer and obtained a Memo dated 23.9.1992 from him that the sale of land was number hit by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfers Act, 1977.
As pointed out earlier, the Government, by its order dated 24th of January, 1996, ratified the action of the Collector.
This Writ Petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 3.5.1994 by the following order This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorary by calling for the records relating to the impugned order dt.
If land has been transferred in companytravention of the companyditions, the Collector may eject the transferee.
Pursuant to the judgment passed by the High Court, the respondents submitted their explanations to the show cause numberice which was companysidered by the District Revenue Officer and he, by his order dated 15.9.1994, held that there was numberirregularity in the assignment of lands to the respondents.
No.1122, dated 29.6.1961 by which the assignment of lands falling within 10 miles of Hyderabad City was banned.
SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted.
On 21.10.1961, each of the respondents was allotted an area of 7.06 acres of Government land situated in village Manchirevula, District Rangareddy, situated at a distance of about 10 miles from the city of Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh.
This order was challenged by the respondents in Writ Petition No.484 of 1995.
This order was examined by the Collector who was of the opinion that the District Revenue Officer had number examined certain vital aspects of the matter and companysequently by his order dated 3rd of January, 1995, he suspended the operation of the order dated 15.9.1994, passed by the District Revenue Officer.
In exercise of the power companyferred by Section 172 of the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Land Revenue Act, 1317 F., the Government had made THE LAONI RULES, 1950 of which Rule 19 is quoted below 19.
28.3.1994 of the second respondent and quash the same, by the impugned numberice dated 28.3.1994 the Distt.
The pattadar may be rejected by the order of the Collector for breach of any of the above companyditions Provided that he has been served with a numberice calling upon him to companyply with the companyditions which he has violated and he fails to companyply with it within three months of the date of service thereof.
The allottee of the land shall prepare the land for cultivation within three years of being placed in possession and companymence cultivation of the land thereafter.
