Munagala Padmamma, v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Between:

Munagala Padmamma .. Petitioner and The District Collector, Nellore and others .. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 19.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Acs.5.12 cents in Sy.Nos.715/2-5P, 715-2-3, 715/2-4, 715/2-5, 715/2-6, 716/1-1 and 716/1-2 situated at Nagulavaram Village, Bogole Mandal, Nellore District, as illegal and arbitrary.

The case of the petitioner is that she purchased land to an extent of Acs.5.12 cents in Sy.Nos.715/2-5P, 715-2-3, 715/24, 715/2-5, 715/2-6, 716/1-1 and 716/1-2 situated at Nagulavaram Village, Bogole Mandal, Nellore District, from one Upputuri Mangamma and six others for a valid sale consideration under an agreement of sale dated 20.07.1998, and since then, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and eking out her livelihood by doing cultivation. It is stated that the petitioner is regularly paying land revenue to the Government and her possession was also recorded in the revenue records. While things stood thus, the Village Revenue Officer is said to have obstructed the petitioner from carrying on

with the agricultural operations, as per the instructions of the 3rd respondent.

It is also stated that when the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent, he was informed that the land was an assigned land, and as such, she is not entitled to enter upon the land. Questioning the action of the 3rd respondent, the writ petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that even if the petitioner purchased the assigned land, she is entitled for regularization of the same under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 9 of 1977 (for short 'the Act') as he is a landless poor person, and the 3rd respondent is bound to issue a notice to the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act before taking any action. In the absence of any such notice being served on the petitioner, the learned counsel submits that the action of the 3rd respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land is illegal and unjust. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents.

However, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submits that no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner, without following the due process of law. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for revenue, the Writ Petition is disposed of, by directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Acs.5.12 cents in Sy.Nos.

without following the due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in the writ petition shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 19th August, 2015 cbs HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

19th August, 2015 cbs