1- A RAMULU v. STATE OF TELANGANA

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith. the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more part-rcularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No_4 in issuing ttre vide Procgs vide No. C/1994/2015 dated 23.122017 for resumption of the assigned lands in survey No. 46/5 extent Ac 4.00 gts of petitioner No 1, in survey No. 46/6 extent Ac 4-00 gts of petitioner No 2. in survey No. 46/15 extent Ac 2.00 gts of petitoner No 3,in survey No. 46/17 extent Ac 2.00 gts of petitioner No 4 and in survey No. 46/2 extent Ac 5.00 gts of petitioner No 5 situated at Anukunta village, Adilabad Rural Mandal, Adilabad District in pursuance of the form notice I vide Rc No. C/ 1994/2015 dated 26.10.2017 on the ground of tand kept fallow without jurisdiction as arbitrary, illegal, violation of principles of naturat justice and contrary to the AP Assigned Lands (Prohibiticn of Transfers) Act 1997 and rules framed there under and contrary to the order passed by the respondent No. 3 vide proc No. C1122i2O16 dated 17.8.2016, violative of Artic es 14, 16 and 300A of constitution of lndra and also contrary to the ratio laid dr,wn by this Hon'ble court in reported in 2017 (1) ALT 499, consequently set aside the same IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in t re circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings vide Pror: No. C/l994/201 5 dated 23-12.2017 issued by the respondent No.4 pending lisposal of the main Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. GUDI MADHUSUDHATI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MOHD. HABEEBUCTDIN AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SARATH ORDER: \[I.P.No.6454 of 2OLB This writ petition is fiIed questioning the action of tl-re respondent No.4 in issuing the proceedings No.C/ 1994/2015 dated 23.l2.2ol7 for resumption of the assigned lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.0O gts in Sy.No.46/5 of tine petitioner No.1, Ac.4.O0 gts in Sy.No.46/6 of the petitioner No.2, Ac.2.OO gts in Sy.No.46/15 of the petitioner No.3, Ac.2.OO in Sy.No.46/17 of the petitioner No.4 and Ac.5,OO gts in Sy.No.46/2 of the petitioner No.S situated at Anukunra Village, Adilabad Rural Mandal, Aditabad District as illegal and arbitrary. 2,. Heard Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel lor the petitioners and Mr. Mohd. Habeebuddin, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment and perused the material on record.

3. Le arned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the total land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 17-OO gts in Sy.No.46 was assigned to thc petitioners and their ancestors in the year, 1952, pattadar passbooks and title deeds vide ") SK, J patta Nos. 182, 50, 23, 82 arrd g-/ respective y were issued, their names were mutated in the revellue re :or-ds and also issued pa-hanies to them and since then they are in continuou.s possession ar-id enjoyment of the subject lands. The respondent No.4 has issued Form_l notices vide Nc.C/199.+/2O15 ciated 24.Oa.2O15 unCer Ilule 3 of the Telanga,ra Assigirecl Lands (prohibition of Tr: msfers) Ruies, 2OO7 to the petitioncrs on the allegation r rf violation o[ assignmerLt condition i.e., making bicks/un<ter fallow and the petitionci-s havc siibrrriited their exl rianations on 14.O9.2Ol;5. He submits that withor,rt consiclering their explanations, thc respondent No.4_Tahsilda.. has issued resumption or-dcrs on 25.1 I .201.5. euestio,ring the said orders, the petitior-rers ha,,,e f rled appcal: r before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Oflicer ,rnd as those appeals have not been takcn up, they have file,d several writ petitions and r l-re same were disposed of u,ith a direction to the respondenr No.3 to dispose of the appeal,; hled by the petitioners by clirecting the parties to maintain status quo.

4. Learned (_tounsel for the petitioners further submits that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the ap oeals filed by ., ,l J SK, J W.P.No 6464 of 2018 the petitioners were a.llowed vide proc. No,C/ 122 /2016 dated 17.Oa.2Ol6, wherein the respondent No.3 after inspection of the f-relds observed that the petitioners were cultivating the subject lands by raising the crops in kharif 2016-17 and as per the status report of the respondent No.4 vide Lr.No.C/t994/20tS dated 25.07.2016, the petitioners were in possession of the subject lands and directed the respondent No.4 to restore the possession of the subject lands to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners made a representation on 18.08.2016 for entering their names in online pahanies. Initially the respondent No.4 has not considered the sarne and the petitioners have hled W.PNo.39338 of 2016 and the sarne was disposed of on O5.1 1.20 16. Subsequently, the respondent No.4 has considered the onlinc applications and issued online pahanies to the petitioners.

5. l,earned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in spite of issuance of online pahanies, again the respondent No.4 has passed the impugned resumption orders alleging that the petitioners never cultivated the lands and kept fallou, nhich is contrary to the order passed by the respondent No.3 4 SK, J W P No 6464 oi 2018 dated 17 .08.2016. He further submits tl rat once the possessiorr of the subject lands were re.;tored to the petitionersi after conducting held inspection and enquiry, again on the same grounds, the impugnecl resumption order was issued and the respondent No.4 has no juriscliction to reopen tht: issue on tilc ailegation oi vioiation of assignment conditions by the petitioners and requested to allou. the writ petition by. setting aside thc impugned resumpt on ordcr.

6. L.earned Assistant Gur.,ernrnent Plcader i.>r Assignment based on the counter averments submits th rt against the impugned ordcr, the petitioners have remcdS, o appeal under Section a-A(1) of the Tclangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 belore thc respondent No.I :rnd without availing such remedy, they have filed the preserrt writ petition and the sarne is liable to be dismissed. He sub rrits that even after restoration of thc subject lands as per thc ordcrs of the respondent No.3 dated 17.08.2016, the petition,:rs have again used the assrgned lands for non-agriculturr: purpose by making bricks and after issuing notice and aft:r considering their explzrnations, the respondent No.4 ha; passed the impugned ,lrder resuming the subject lands int: Government \ -/" ) SK, J W P No.&8t o( 2018 custody. He further sul-'mits that as the petitioners have conditions of assignment, the respondent No'4 violated the has passed the impugned order and there is no need to interfere with by this Court and requestcd to dismiss the wrlt petttlon.

7. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record' this Court is of the considered vie'w that admittedly' the subject Iands were assigned to thc fgLrnities of the petitioners and pattadar passbooks and titte deeds r'r'ere issued to them' The respondent No.4 has passed resumption orders for suit schedule property on 25 1i 2015 on the ground of violation o[ assignment conditions that the petitioners are using the assigned lands for non agricultural purpose for making bricks instead of cultivatron anci they are leased out the assigned lands to others by selling of gravet/mud' Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed appeal' wherein the respondent No.3 has conducted lield inspection and found that the asslgnees are cultivating the Iands and raised crops in Kharif 2016-17 and the Tah'sildar' Adilabad also submitted his status report vide Lr'No C/ lgg4 l2Ol5 dated 25'07'2016 stating that the petitioners arc in possession of the subject 6 * o ,ro Uouo or!5id lands and cultivating the Iands by raising c -ops and directed to restore possession of the sub;ect lands ;o the petitioners with rrecessary entries ln the reven _le records as pattadars/ assignees Thereafter, the su bj :ct lands were restored to the petitioners and issued pahanir s 8 In the impugned proceedings, the resp(,ndent No.4 has stated Urat on the spot inspection, it rerealed that the asslgnees have never cultivated thc tand and kept fallow and hence the assignees have violated the assignrrent conditions and cancelled the assignment in l,avour of the petitioners and resumed the land into Government custocly. Earlier, for the suit scheclule property, the respondent No.3, in thc appsal filed by the petitioners es2ir.lc, ,,_^ _- s against the resuntptrc n orders, has categoricalty held that the petitioners are cultivz ring the iands and set aside the resumption orders. Now tl e respondent No.4 without any verification of the records h: s stated that the petitioners have never cultivated the tands_ The appellate authority after conducting field enquiry h as given a categorical linding that the petitioners have not i.:olated the conditions :n the assignment pattas and set aside the resumption proceedings vide proc.No.,)/ 122/2016 i ---a u-,,' I I 7 SK, J W P No.6464 of 201E dated 17.08.2016. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings are liabre to be set aside as it was issued without any jurisdiction and contrary to the findings given by the respondent No.3 in proceedings No.C/122/2016 dated 17.08.2016.

9. In view of the above findings, the Writ petition is a.llowed, by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.4 in Proceedings No.C I t99a /20 I 5 dated 23.t2.2O17 .

10. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' Witness the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice SUJOY PAUL, on this Monday,The Fourteenth Day Of July Two Thousand And Twenty Five e //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

5. o- 7 The Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad' The District Collector, Adilabad Dist. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad Division, Adilabad district' The Tahasidar. Adilabad rural Mandal Adilabad District. One CC to SRl. GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNMENT ,High Court for the State of Telangana tOUI Two CD Copies KK GJ G HIGH COURT DATED:1410712025 '(' i l, I 2 12 S:.P 2925 1/ ,. ''l/i I-'' \ .-. ORDER WP.No.6464 of 2018 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS &9