The Andhra Pradesh high court has dismissed the writ petition filed by former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa challenging the show-cause notice issued by the Andhra Pradesh government on the alleged occupation of assigned land by her on the outskirts of Hyderabad.
Justice V V S Rao refused to stay the show-cause notice issued to Jayalalithaa by the mandal revenue officer of Qutubullahpur on January 24, 2007, and dismissed the writ petition on the ground that moving the court was premature.
In his 11-page judgment on Friday, Justice Rao said that prima facie, the court was satisfied that the show-cause notice satisfied the requirements of law.
The inquiry on whether the lands were assigned or not was pending before the MRO and it was not proper for the court to interfere with the process at this stage.
"It would not be proper for the court to make any observations or record passing remarks on the nature of the land or the nature of occupation of the land by the petitioner. These are the matters for inquiry before the MRO," the judge said.
It may be recalled that the MRO had issued the notice calling upon the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader to show cause for being in possession of 8 acres and 10 guntas of assigned land in Pet Basheerabad, Medchal area of Rangaredy district.
The notice sought an explanation from her as to why the land should not be resumed by the state government since it fell under the assigned lands category.
Moving the high court, the petitioner's counsel had raised three grounds wherein it was contended that the MRO's notice was without jurisdiction, the land purchased by the petitioner did not attract the penal provisions of the AP Assigned Lands Act and that the lands had been purchased before the act came into being.
Jayalalithaa said in her petition that she purchased the land way back in 1968 and the act came into force only in 1977, and that it was not applicable in her case.
She also alleged that the Congress government in Andhra Pradesh issued her the notice to settle political scores.
The judge pointed out that the action of the revenue authorities cannot be said to suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction and it was open to the petitioner to file another detailed reply if so advised and the same would be going into in the court of the inquiry.
He said the petitioner had the liberty to raise all the objections before the MRO and directed the MRO to consider all the issues raised by the petitioner.
The judge further said that the concerned authority had to decide whether the land fell under the assigned land category or not and whether the petitioner was a bonafide purchaser.
© 2025