Employee v. Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI KIRAN KUMAR GAITU, SC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6&7: Gp FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER ; I I i I I t t THE HONOURABLE SRI J USTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No. 3855 of 2O17 ORDER: FIeard learned counsel forl the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for thc respondent Nos. 1 to 4, learn! d Assistant Governme nt Pleader lor Stamps and Regist] ratlon appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and learJ ned Standing Counsel for tl-re respondent No.5 Bhoodan Ya! na Board and perused the material on record.

2. Aggrieved by the actio] n of the Respondents for inclusion of the petitioners prirf ate patta lands bearing S1'.No.619 admeasuring Ac.17- )6 guntas situatcd at 1'urkayamjal Viilage, Abdullapurr] net Mandal, Rangareddy District, in the list of Bhoodan L] ands and prohibiting the registrations of the documents in ] respect of said lands, the pctitioners filed the present writ pe] tition

3. Learned counsel for thel r petitioners; submits that lhe father of the petitioners one Lf rte Mir Mahmood Ali ',r,iLs thc original Inamdar of the 1d .nds bearing Sy.No.619 admeasuring Ac.|-/ .36 gts, situate( I at Turkayamjal Village, 'I \ ) J( ./ tl7r / t.\jj .1r],/ ' Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ralgareddy District, zmd the same was recorded as "Dasthugardan" Inam lald and is evidenced from the Revenue Records as St:thu'ar, Khasra Pahani, Sesala Pahanies from the year, 19511-55 onu'ards and the father ol the petitioners have been cultivating the lands. After the demise of their father, the petitroners along with their motl"Ier succeeded the subject lancl. At no point of time, the father of the petitioners never donzr-tt:d the subject land to the Bhoodan Yagna Board. In spite of the same, the subject land reflected. in the Bhoodan Yagna Board'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners along with their mother submitted a Form I application under the prc'visions of the A.P.(T.A) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, trelbre the then Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-lnam Tribtrnal seeking for grant of occupancy right certificate in res;pr:ct of subject land, r,vherein the petttioners were granted rt'ith the occupancy rights vide Proceedings in Ll3llo3 11989 dated 2l.O2.l9gl. Thereafter, the names of the petitioners and their mother have been mutated in the revetrue records uide order dated 25.02.1991 and were issued wi1.h pattadar pass n' 'l 3 s^../ t'P Il85i )()t7 books and title deeds. While it bqing so, without any valid documents, the subject land is included as one of the Bhoodan land, thereby, the same was reflected in the prohibited list. The petitioners have submitted an application to thc respondent No.2 requesting to delete the subjcct lands from the list of Bhoodan land and to issue NOC so as to enable the petitioners to alienate the subject

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioners, the respondent No.2 issued a letter vide Lr No.tr4l6281 12016, dated 23.11.2016 and called for report from the respondents Nos.3 and 4. On receipt ol the report from the respondent No.4 uide Lr.No.C /319 12016 dated 13.12.2016, the rqsponde n t No.3 uide Lr.No.B I 279 I 2016, dated 28. 12.2 16, submitted his report P ,t the petitioners and thetr to the respondent No.2, stating thq p rcdece ssor- in - title were recorded as pattedar and possessor ] from the .vcar 1954-55 to till date. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued conversi on proceedings uide Flle No.LlBT l2016 dated 06.11.2016 to an extent of Ac.B.26 .t .\A ./ guntas out of the su bjet:t land and as per the notification issued under Section 22-A by the District Collector, Rangareddv District r;lde R.R.No.92 I 2Ol3 datcd 25.09.201 3 and also uide File No.trS/49 l7 /2013, the respondent No.4 conclucled that the subjcct land does not inclurded in thc Bhoodan land

6. Learned courrsel lor the petitioners further submits that after receipt o[ tl-rc reports fronr the respondent Nos.3 and 4 the respondent No.2 nei,h:r issued No Objection Certificate to the petitioners nor directed the concerned authorit-y for deletion of the subje ct land lrom the list of Bhooclan land. [n vieq' of the same, th(] respondent No.2 has addressed a letter- dated 1O.()2.2O 1 7 to the respondent No.5 herein seeking clarification ,r,ith regard to the subject land as u,hether the land i n Sy. No.6 19 of Turkayamjal Village is BhoodaLn land or not. Pursuant to the same, the respondent No.lj has submitred a letter uide LT.No.TBYB/ A/ 14/2017, daled 13.03.2',O17 to respondent No.2 stating that one Mohd. Flimam Ali has donated the land in S.v.No.(> 19, admeasur-ing Ac.15.OO guntas to the Bhoodan Yagna Board and the same is f, J(,./ tt:P t-18i5 )01 ,- m utated b."' the Tahsildar, Itlyderabad East, uide Lr.No.trl llO1Bl63, dared 23.03. td6S and the subject land is not distribu[ed to anv person by the Bhoodan Yagna Board

7. Lcarned counsel lor e petitioners further submits that the said action of the pondents in listing the subject land as Bhoodan land without any basis or any document is illegal, arbitrary ,].a the father of the petitioners had never donated the subject land to the Bhoodan lancl, therefore, requested to allow the writ petition and direct the respondent authoritles to delete the subject land in S-r,.No.619 situated in Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Rangareddj District from the list of Bhoodan lands.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue ancl learned Standing Co nsel appearing for the respondent No.5 Bhoodan Yagna Board submits that except letter from the Tahsildar uide Ftle o.El lIOa8l 63, dated D

23.03. 1963, no other letter availab l. in the revenue record as the subject land u,as donated to the Bhoodan yagna Board 6 tP t-lx5.t )0t ,, 1

9. Learned Standing Counsel appcaring for the respondent No.5-Bhoodan Y,rgna Board, basrng on the counter affidavit, submits -hat on vcrificatron of the available Bhoodar-r Recorcl, i t is seel-r that one Sri Mohd.Himam Ali, S/o Shaik l.4adar Saheb has donated rhe subject lald to the Bhoodan Yagna Board and the Tahsildar, Hyderabad East, Hyderabad Districr, ulde File.No.El I 1O4Bl 63, dated 23.O3.1963 has accepted the s;rme trnd also mutated in favour of the tshoodan Yagna Samithi. He further submits that the Revcnue Departme n1. u,as regularly issued circulars directing the concerned to rnutate the lands in favour of the Bhoodan Board subs;erluent to the enactment of the A.P. Bhoodar-r and Gramdarr Rules, 1965. As per the proceedings date<l 23.03.1963 issued by the Tahsildar, it is mentioned that the sub,ject I:Lnd rs a Bhoodan Lar-rd. Therefore, qu,tstion ol treating the subject land as a private land does not arise and Iequested this Court to dismiss the rvrit pctition.

10. After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire material on record. this Court is of tl-re considered view that the father of the petitioners b1, narn€ onc [-ate Mir 7 .!x. J tt l|155 l1t l Mahmood Ali r'r,as the original attedar of the land in $ Sy.No.6 19 admeasuring Ac.l7 .36 guntas situated in Turkayamjal Villagc, Abdullapurr4et Mandal, Rangareddy District and the subject land as never gifted by the pelitioners' fathcr to the Bhoodhn Yagna Board. After 1 demise of their father, the petitioners along with their mother has succeeded the sub.iect land and obtained occupancy rights procecdings uide No.L / 3903 I 1989 ,

21.02.1991. Subscquentll', the rtames of the petitioners $/ere mutated in revenue records and were issued with pattedar passbooks and title eeds. ThereaJter, the 1 competent authorit-v also uide File No.L/87 12076 dated

06.1 1.2016 granted permission to {he petitioners to convert the subject lar.rd. While it beifig so, the respondent authorities has ir-rcluded the land of the petitioners under prohibited list on the ground that the subject land belongs to Bhoodan Yagna Board. But, elcept the letter issued by the Tahsildar uide Rel.No.E 1 I 1O48163. dated 23.O3.1963, there is no other documentary evidence to show that the subject land belongs to Mr.Mohd.Himam Ali, S/o Shaik Madar Saheb, $,ho stated to be d onated the land to the Bhoodan Yagna Board, in fact th I revenue records clearly 8 .!A J li /, l.l\i,i lrll - shows that the subject land belongs to ll-r: fathcr o[ the petitioners ald he was the original Inamdar of thc subject land and on his demise the conlpetent authoritr has issucd Occupancy Rights Certificate to the pctitior-rcrs and their mother.

11. At the time of argument, the le;ul-rr:d Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 Bhoodarrl Yagna Board has fairly conceded that there s 1lo other documentary' evidence to shor',' that the subject land lall under the Bhoodan Yagna Board excepL tl'rt lctter datcd 23.03.1963 issued by the Tahsildar. A.t the time of admission, this Court granted an inlerirn order datcd

23.1O.2017, wherein it has clearly renderecl a finding that the respondents are not in a position to ck:arl-y shor'r' that the subject larld belongs to one Mohd.Himanr ,\li, S/o Shaik Madar Saheb ald there are no proceedings or no other document to prove that he has donated tJrc subject land to the Bhoodan Yagna Board. L2. At the time of hearing of the u'rit petition also, the respondent authorities have failed tt> producc an1' documentary proof to shou, that the subjecl l.rnd belong to i -/" / c 9 -t(. J u't, 11355 )017 Mr Mohd.Himam AIi and he has donated the subject land to the Bhoodan Yagna Board

13. Therefore, this Court s of the oPinion that the respondent w'ithout any valid documcntarl' I authorities are not entitled to cide the subject land oard and as such, the belongs to the Bhoodan Yagna action of the respondent authoritips in listing the subject land of the petitioners under the Bhoodan lands is illegal and arbitrary, which is liable to be set aside' Therefore' the respondent authorities'have to delf te the subject land from the prohibited tist, thereb.v, registpr the subject document presented bY the Pctitioners ' L4- In vieu, of the above findings, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondent Authorities to exclude the Iand situated in Sy.No.619 admgasuring Ac'17'36 guntas situated at Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandai' Rangareddy District ftom the tilt oi Bhoodan lands and further directing the rcsponcient puthorities to register the subject land in favour of thc petin-ioners There shall be no order as to costs. :: l0:: t' I

15. Miscellaneous petitions, if an1', p,rrldirrg in this Writ Petition shali stand closed To, SDi- I'.C\N DEPU //TRUE COPY' .agabhushamba V REGISTRAR :Ft TION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary. Revenue Department Secr]tzrriat' T S Hyderabad' i iii; Di;i;icorr"itor, {anglr"ddy Didtrict at Lakdik;rp,rol. Hyderabad _ 5. iii; il";;;;E"oivisionat ofiiier' i6ranimp-atnam Divi:;ion Rangareddv District' ;. iil; i;;;;ild;i Aooriiapu,ret Mandal, Ransareddv District 'sil"];l orace o,jpliv-coir"ti"i and"secre[;i1' Telangana Bhocdan ;. +il; " vri"l'filrrO. Ofiice ot [fi"'nrtnoriry and Special (]hief Secretary. Revenue -orfi;' Vanaslraripuram' Ransareddv o. ifre Oistrict Registrar, Rangareddy District ' - ; +ii; si;ij-R"giiii;,,'su6-ils:;il; 8. 6#'c'c to SRl. VENKAT REDDY THIPPARTHI' A(lvocate toPu-cl 6 i# 6bt t, cp ron neVEr'rue ,Hign cou't for the State of Telansana at 10 i';r;Cc;id-cp'ron'srnMPS AND REGlsrRArl()N Hish court ror the - 11.6;;'ct i;SiT KiRAN (ulnn GArru, sc [oPU(;] 1 2. Two CD CoPies $ aN,l O"e'oaimJnt, S"cretariat, TelanganaState' Hyderab;rd State of Telangana, at Hvderabad [OUT] Hvderabad [OUT] District. TKS HIGH COURT DATED:2610612025 ORDER WP.No.13855 of 2017 4/. .- , t-r (.1 \ '\ __:..\ \: o + 2 3 AUE 206 /. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {