@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.@mdashThis writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not restoring possession of
the land admeasuring Acs. 4.64 cents in Survey No. 981/A1 of Griddaluru Village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as illegal and
arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to put the petitioner back into possession of the above-mentioned
land, after setting aside the proceedings, dated 25.06.2007, of respondent No. 4 to the extent of resumption/cancellation of the assignment and
also order, dated 27.01.2013, of respondent No. 3. I have heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
2. One Bhaskar Rao, father of the petitioner, was assigned an extent of Acs. 4.64 cents in Survey No. 981/A1 of Griddaluru Village (hereinafter
referred to as ''the subject land'') by respondent No. 4 vide his proceedings in F. Dis. No. 11/85, dated 25.07.1978. The subject land was
resumed by respondent No. 4 vide his proceedings in Rc. No. 609 and 610, dated 20.06.2007, on the ground that the assignee has sold the
property to respondent No. 7 contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ''the Act'').
3. For the first time, after resumption of the subject land, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 3 on 16.11.2012 for restoration
of the land as per the direction contained in the resumption order. On the said representation, respondent No. 3 has made an endorsement to the
effect - ""verify the assignment register and see if the assignee(''s) name exists, book POT case against the illegal encroachers and restore land back
to the original assignee"". A similar endorsement was made by respondent No. 3 on the petitioner''s representation, dated 07.01.2013.
4. However, on the representations made by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, respondent No. 3 called for a report from respondent No. 4 and after
considering the report, dated 24.12.2012, submitted by the latter, respondent No. 3 has passed order, dated 27.01.2013, wherein he has stated
that as per the report of respondent No. 4, the original assignee was not a native of Griddaluru village, that he came to the Village from his native
Prakasam District in connection with the tobacco barn works and that after closing of the barns, he went back to his native village and died on
12.10.1989, that his wife also died on 15.12.2005 in her native village and that the land was resumed on 20.06.2007. That the petitioner came
back to Griddaluru village three months back and claimed restoration of the land as the legal heir of the assignee. That at present, the subject land
is under the possession and enjoyment of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who belong to Scheduled Caste and they are eligible for grant of D-form patta.
That as the land was resumed in the year 2007 and no appeal was filed, the said resumption order has become final and as such, possession of the
present enjoyers need not be disturbed and that in view of the instructions issued by the State Government not to propose new assignments, it is
not possible to issue D-form patta in favour of the present enjoyers and that the same will be considered after receiving instructions from the State
Government.
5. Feeling aggrieved by non-restoration of the land to the petitioner, he has filed this writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very order of resumption was illegal as the same was passed against a dead person and
without notice to the legal heir of the assignee. Alternatively, the learned counsel submitted that u/s 4(1)(b) of the Act as it stood, the petitioner who
is admittedly the legal heir of the original assignee is entitled for restoration of the land and also as directed by respondent No. 4 in the resumption
order.
7. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submitted that the very assignment itself given to the father of the petitioner who was never the
permanent resident of Griddaluru was irregular and that in any event, the petitioner having kept quiet without questioning the resumption order or at
least making a claim for restoration of the land within a reasonable time is not entitled to seek restoration of the land. He has further submitted that
by the time, the petitioner has sought for restoration, the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act have been amended by Act No. 21 of 2008,
whereunder the restoration of the land to the original assignee or to his family members is not automatic.
8. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that since his client is interested in restoration of the land, he is not interested in
pressing the relief of setting aside the order of resumption. Therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to deal with the legality or otherwise of that
part of the order, dated 20.06.2007, of respondent No. 4.
10. From a reading of the order, dated 20.06.2007, it is clear that while resuming the land, respondent No. 4 has further observed that after
verifying the eligibility of the assignee as on the date of passing of the order, further action will be taken for restoration of the land in his favour or in
favour of his legal heirs u/s 4(1)(b) of the Act.
11. Section 4(1)(b) of the Act as it originally stood to the extent it is relevant for this case is as under:
4. Consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3:- (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-sec. (1) of Section 3, have been contravened in
respect of any assigned land, he may, by order-
(a) ....
(b) restore the assigned land to the original assignee or his legal heir, or where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such assignee
or legal heir, resume the assigned land to Government for assignment of 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 person.
....
12. In strict sense, the petitioner being the legal heir is entitled to restoration of the land as per Section 4(1)(b) of the Act as it stood then. But, the
petitioner has not approached the respondents till the end of 2012 i.e., for a period of five years, for restoration of the land. From the report of
respondent No. 4 as discussed by respondent No. 3, it appears that the original assignee has left the village for his native place in Prakasam
District much prior to the resumption of the land and he died on 12.10.1989 i.e., almost eight years prior to resumption of the land. It was further
reported by respondent No. 4 that the petitioner came back from his native place to Griddaluru three months prior to submission of his application
i.e., some time in September, 2012. Thus, the petitioner failed to assert his right for restoration of possession of the land in terms of Section 4(1)(b)
of the Act.
13. Section 4(1)(b) of the Act has been amended by Act No. 21 of 2008, which to the extent relevant reads as under:
4. Consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3:- (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 his 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) ....
(b) (i) reassign the said resumed land, other than those lands/areas as may be notified by the Government from time to time in public interest and
for public purpose, to the transferee who purchased the land in good faith and for valuable consideration on or before 29th January, 2007, subject
to the condition that he/she is landless poor person, and is in occupation of the land by using the said land for agriculture or as house site, as on the
date of taking possession by eviction:
Provided that the reassignment in case of transferee shall be limited to only such an extent that the total holding of the re assignee including any
other land held by him/her does not exceed 5.00 acres dry land or 21/2 acres wet land: Provided further that where the transferee who has
purchased the land and got reassignment of it, or his legal heir, transfers the reassigned land, the land shall be resumed for assignment to the other
eligible landless poor;
(ii) restore the said assigned land, other than those land/areas as may be notified by the Government from time to time in public interest and for
public purpose, to the original assignee, subject to the condition that he or she is landless poor person as on the date of restoration for one time; or
(iii) assign to other eligible landless poor person:
.....
14. Confusing as it looks though, the amended provision does not automatically provide for restoration of the assigned land to the original assignee.
The amended provision also renders the transferee eligible for assignment. Strictly speaking, the amended provision which came into force after
resumption of the land may not apply to the present case. However, as noted hereinbefore, the petitioner failed to approach the respondents for
restoration of the land before Section 4(1)(b) of the Act was amended. The claim of the petitioner, thus, suffers from unexplained laches. In this
gap of more than five years, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 came to occupy the land. Respondent No. 4 has opined in his report that respondent Nos. 5
and 6 belong to Scheduled Caste community and they are landless poor persons eligible for assignment.
15. Thus, by the failure of the petitioner to claim restoration of the land within a reasonable time, he has allowed a situation to emerge where
respondent Nos. 5 and 6 came into possession of the land and they have been making competing claims for assignment.
16. In this complex situation, this Court is of the opinion that it would be highly iniquitous to direct respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to straightway restore
possession of the land to the petitioner. The petitioner having frittered away his right of automatic restoration by his own making can at best be
considered for assignment as an eligible landless poor person by competing with respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who are also found to be landless poor
persons. The claims of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for assignment need to be considered as per para-10 of BSO-15. If the
petitioner is able to establish in the enquiry that he has permanently settled down in Griddaluru Village by producing relevant material, he shall be
considered as a native of that Village while considering the claims of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 under para-10 of BSO-15.
Respondent No. 4 is accordingly directed to consider the claims of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 strictly according to the
preference laid down in the above-mentioned para of the Board Standing Order by holding enquiry, wherein he shall give an opportunity of being
heard to both the parties and thereafter pass a speaking order, wherein he shall discuss the merits and demerits of both the parties and give reasons
in support of his decision to grant assignment in favour of the person(s) among the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6. He shall complete this
exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is
disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No. 16193 of 2013 and W.V.M.P. Nos. 2975 & 3219 of 2013 shall stand
disposed of as infructuous.