84.When the petitioner’s family was issued D patta and when they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying land revenue – change of classification of land without following the procedure , trying to evict the petitioners for“Navaratnalu – Pedalandariki Illu” is illegal.
When the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said land by paying land revenue and patta granted in favour of his grandfather long ago was for consideration. Therefore, the alleged change of classification of the land from “Punta and L.F. Road to G.P – A.W.D is an illegality since the patta is not yet cancelled. It is also contended that the land in an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in same survey number is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. When the petitioner is asserting that the respondents admitted that the petitioner is in possession of the same change of classification of the land converting “Punta and L.F. Road to G.P – A.W.D would not serve any purpose, even if, Ac.0.26 cents in same survey number intended to be assigned. The said land which is classified as Punta and L.F. Road is deemed to have been vested on Gram Panchayat on its constitution under Section 53(2) and Section 58 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and unless a notice under Section 53(2) and BSO 15(2) are issued to divest the Gram Panchayat land and vest on the Government taking steps by issuing notice in Form-A1 would not serve any purpose and it will not confer any right on the Government to assign the land unless the notifications required under Section 53(2) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, prior to issue of orders for conversion under BSO 15(2). No such order was issued. Therefore, the action of respondents proposing to assign the land to the landless poor under ‘Navaratnalu – Pedalandariki Illu’ is contrary to Section 53 and Section 58 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Apart from that the extent of Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No.117/2 is already assigned to the grandfather of petitioner and patta is not yet cancelled by following the procedure according to law. In the circumstances proposing to allot the same as house site to the landless poor is an illegality and consequently the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of respondents in trying to evict the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No.117/2, Ac.0.26 cents in Sy.No.117 i.e., total extent of Ac.0.62 cents of Rachapatnam Village, Kaikaluru Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner, except by due process of law.