Medipally Pentaiah and Others vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rangareddy East Division and Others

V.V.S. Rao, J.—The land admeasuring Acs.16.92 cents of Elimineedu Village in Ranga Reddy District was owned by one Smt. Mankhala Radhamma. She filed a declaration being C.C. No. 1/3508/75 under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act, for brevity). As she was determined to be surplus holder, land admeasuring Acs.16.92 in survey No. 307 was taken possession by the Government, as per the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad East Division. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam (MRO), assigned the land by proceedings dated 18.6.1979 to the petitioners. Petitioners 1 to 6 were assigned an extent of Acs.2.00 each whereas seventh petitioner was assigned an extent of Acs.4.92 guntas. The petitioners allege that they have taken possession of the land and cultivated the land for about fifteen (15) years. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), however, issued proceedings dated 26.10.1996 cancelling the assignment made in favour of the petitioners and directed to restore the land to the declarant Radhamma. This writ petition is filed seeking invalidation of the proceedings of the RDO, the first respondent herein.

A counter affidavit is filed by the RDO sustaining the impugned proceedings. It is stated that aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 12.10.1975 declaring her as surplus landholder, Radhamma filed appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which affirmed the order of the primary Tribunal. The declarant, thereafter, filed C.R.P. No. 4645 of 1980 before this Court. By order dated 14.9.1982, this Court remanded the matter to primary Tribunal. After remand, the primary Tribunal passed orders on 24.6.1983 determining Radhamma as non-surplus holder of agricultural land as on the notified date. Thereafter, she filed a petition before the RDO to restore the possession to her in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.16.92 cents. In response thereto, the MRO was called upon to submit a report. When the matter was pending at that stage, Radhamma filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 13782 of 1994 and this Court disposed of the same directing the first respondent to expedite the disposal of the application filed by Radhamma for restoration of possession. The matter was then referred to the District Collector, who directed the RDO to take action for resumption of the land from the petitioners. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and they did not file any objections. In view of the same, the impugned orders were passed directing the restoration of the land to the original declarant and that the MRO, restored the possession of the land to the declarant in the prescribed Form-XI on 04.11.1996.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that when the land has been in possession of the petitioners pursuant to assignment made by the MRO in 1979, it would be arbitrary for the respondents to cancel the assignment with a view to restore the land to the original declarant under the provisions of the Act. He would submit that in such a situation, the RDO has to allot alternative land to the original declarant without disturbing the assignees or transferees of the surplus agricultural land. This contention is refuted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) by placing reliance on Rules 10 and 10A of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (the Rules, for brevity).

Section 14 of the Act deals with disposal of land vested in the Government. Be it noted that after determination of the surplus land, the declarant has to surrender the land to the Government, as per Rule 8 of the Rules. Be it also noted that when once the land surrendered or is deemed to have been taken possession, the land absolutely vests in the Government free from all encumbrances (See Section 11 of the Act). Such land which vests in the Government shall have to be allotted for use as house sites or for agricultural purpose or for other purposes ancillary thereto. The transfer or assignment of such land shall be subject to the conditions as enumerated under Rule 10(4) of the Rules. Any violation or contravention of such conditions attracts penal consequences provided under Rule 10(5) of the Rules. There is no dispute about this legal position. Further, when the land is transferred u/s 14(4) of the Act read with Rule 10 of the Rules to landless poor persons either for agricultural purpose or for house site, while the case of the declarant found to be surplus holder is pending before the Tribunal or High Court, what would be the position if ultimately the Tribunal or High Court holds declarant as a non- surplus holder? Initially, when the Rules were promulgated in 1974 there was no provision to deal with such a case. The Government, therefore, amended the Rules by G.O.Ms. No. 611, dated 25.5.1977, inserting Rule 10A of the Rules. Rule 10A of the Rules deals with two situations. Subrules (1) to (5) of Rule 10A advert to a situation where as a result of fresh determination the land vested in the Government u/s 11 of the Act is to be retransferred to the person, who surrendered the land. Subrules (5) to (8) deal with a situation where as a result of the orders passed by the appellate Tribunal on an appeal u/s 20 of the Act or by the High Court on an application for revision filed u/s 21 of the Act, the land vested in the Government u/s 11 of the Act, is to be retransferred to the original declarant. These Sub-rules (5) to (8) read as under.

10-A. Retransfer of land vested in Government in certain cases:

(5) Where, as a result of the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on an appeal filed u/s 20 or by the High Court on an application for revision filed u/s 21 of the Act, any land vested in the Government u/s 11 is to be retransferred to the person who surrendered such land, the Tribunal shall pass an order to the effect that the said person is entitled to transfer of such land and it shall specify the extent of such land and also the amount, if any, to be repaid by him to the Government in respect of that land and communicate the order to the Revenue Divisional Officer.

(6) The Revenue Divisional Officer, shall on receipt of the order of the Tribunal under Sub-rule (5) ascertain whether such land has been allotted or transferred to any person and where such land has not been allotted or transferred the Revenue Divisional Officer shall issue a notice to the person who surrendered the land intimating that the land shall be retransferred to him on repayment of the amount specified in the notice, being the amount paid to him by the Government in respect of that land within such time as may be specified, in the notice. On such repayment the Revenue Divisional Officer shall issue an order authorizing an Officer not below the rank of a Revenue Inspector to deliver possession of the land to such person. The Revenue Inspector shall in pursuance of the said order deliver possession of the land and furnish a certificate to the effect in Form XI-A.

(7) (a) In any case where the Revenue Divisional Officer has found that the land to be transferred has been allotted or transferred to any person he shall resume possession of the land from the transferee or allottee for being retransferred to the person who surrendered such land and take action in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule (6); Provided that no possession of the land shall be resumed until after a seasonal crop on the land raised by the transferee is harvested by him. (b) In lieu of the land so resumed and retransferred, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall take steps to allot or transfer to the allottee or transferee any other land vesting in the Government.

(8) The Revenue Divisional Officer shall cause necessary changes to be effected in the relevant village accounts in respect of the lands dealt with under this Rules.

The conspicuous of the above subrules is as follows. When an appeal or revision petition filed by the declarant against a finding of being surplus landholder, is allowed, the Tribunal shall have to pass an order entitling the declarant for retransfer of the land. The RDO thereafter has to ascertain whether the land has been allotted or transferred to any person and then a notice has to be issued to the declarant that the land will be retransferred on payment of money to the Government. On such a payment, the RDO shall authorize the Revenue Inspector to deliver possession and furnish a certificate in Form XI-A. Subrule (7) of Rule 10A of the Rules is to the effect that when the land in question has been transferred/assigned to any person, the same shall have to be resumed from the transferee for retransfer to the person, who surrendered the land. In such an event, under Clause (b) to Sub-rule (7) of Rule 10A, the RDO has to take steps to allot or transfer the land to the allottee or transferee any other land vesting in the Government. This legal position is not denied.

Here, a reference may be made to Sub-rule (4) to Rule 10A, which is to the effect that if the District Collector considers that the resumption of the land from the allottee or transferee is likely to cause hardship to such transferee/allottee, the District Collector after obtaining transfer from the Government, pay to the person (declarant, who surrendered the land) a sum equal to the amount determined in accordance with Section 7(5) of the Act. It is interesting to note that such procedure is contemplated by Rule Making Body only when the land is to be retransferred to a declarant pursuant to a fresh determination an excess land in accordance with the provisions of the Act as amended by A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Amendment Act, 1977. Such procedure is not contemplated when the land has to be retransferred pursuant to the order of the appellate Tribunal u/s 20 of the Act and of the High Court u/s 21 of the Act. The difference between the two situations is glaring and this provision is not available to the petitioner as in this case pursuant to the order of the High Court, primary Tribunal redetermined the holding of the declarant and ordered redelivery of the land. The redetermination or retransfer of the land is not in accordance with the provisions of the Amended Act No. 10 of 1977 and, therefore, Rule 10A (4) of the Rules has no application to the facts of this case.

The impugned order cannot be faulted. However, this order does not preclude the respondents 1 and 2 from considering the request of the petitioners for assignment of agricultural land, if they are still eligible for such an assignment, they may approach the respondents 1 and 2 for this purpose.

The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs.