Maripeddi Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma v. 1. State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the 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 a direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus'declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in passing order in Proc.No,BiB024116 Dt 19-12-2016 as confirmed by the respondent No.2 and 3 in Revision Case No F21190412017 by order dated 31-03-2018 and Appeal No.D2113112017 Dt.O6-05-201 7 respectively directing to rqsume the assigned agricultural land in an extent of Ac.4.00 in Survey No.671 (6711481111 Ac.3.0O and 67113011 Ac.1.00) of suryapet Village and Mandal, Quryapet District from the petitioner on the alleged ground lhat there is transfer of ,assigned Iand and there was no cultivation in violation of conditions of patta as the same is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction besides being violative of Article 14,21 and 30O-A of the constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the impugned order being null and void. i I I i F . IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition unrjer Section I51 CPC praying that in the crrcunstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Courl 'nay be pleased to direct the resp,3nc en's not to interfere with the possession of tre petitioners land in an extent c.f A,c>C2 00 in Survey No 671 (67'l148/1/.1 Ac: :i 0rJ and 67113Q11 Ac.1.00) of suryapet village and Mandal, Suryapet District t,y suspending thq proceedings of the respQndent No.4 in Proc.No 8/8024116 Dl 19-12-2O16 as confirmed by the 'esDondent No.2 and 3 in Revrsion Qase No F11190412017 by. order dated 31-03-2C18 and Appeal No.D2l131/2017 Dt.06-05-2(. 17 respectively pending disposal of the above writ petition. IAN O: 1 OF 2023 Between:

1. State of Telangala, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revent;e . Department, Secretariat. Hyderabad.

2. The Joint Collector, Sueyapet, suryapet district Telangana litate. 3 The Revenue Jivisional Officer, Suryapet, suryapet District Te langana State 4. The Tahsildar liuryapet, Furyapet District Telangana State AND lVlaripedCi Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma, Wo Veeraiah. Aged ,about 50 years, residnet of Sitaramapuram Suryapet town and District, Telang;ana State. .,,PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filerJ in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to vacate the interim orders in l.A. No. 1 of 2019 in W.P. No 10754 ot 2019, dated 04-06-2019 Counsel for the Pertitioner: SRI PASHAM RAVINDRA REDDY Counsel for the Rerspondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made tl" e following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY trIRJT PETITION No.1O754 of2Ol9 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is frled by the petitioner, seeking the following relief: "...to issue a uit, order or a direction, more particularlg one in nature of Wit of Mandamus declaing the oction of th-e respondent No.4 in passing order in Proc.No.B/ 8024/ 16 Dt.19 12 2016 os confinned bg the respondent No.2 and 3 tn Reuision Cqse No F2/1904/2017 bg order doted 31-03-2018 and Appeal No.D2/ 131/2017 DL06-05 2017 respectiuelg directing to resume the assigned agicttltural land in an ertent of Ac.4.O0 in Surueg No. 671 (671/48/1/ 1 Ac.3.OO and 671/ 30/ 1 Ac. 1 .OO) of Suryopet Village and Mandal, Suryapet Dtstict . from the petitioner on the alleged ground that there is transfer of assigned land and there was no culfiuation in uiolation of conditions of patta os the same is arbitrary, itlegal and uithout juisdiction besides being uiolatiue of Article 14,21 and 300 A of the constitution of India qnd consequentlA set aside the impugned order being nuLl and uoid...." It is stated that the petitioner belongs to Backward Class

2. (B.C) community and hails from economicaily poor family. It is further stated that the respondent No.4 has assigned agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts in Sy.No.671 ef Suryapet Village vide patta No.G/ ).58212OO1 dated 31.05.2001. It is also stated that land admeasuring Ac.1-O0 gts in Sy.No.671 was assigned to Bantu Swamy, who is maternal uncle of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that since said Bantu Swamy had no issues, he adopted her and she succeeded the said land admeasuring Ac. 1-0O gts and became owner of total land admeasuring Ac.4-OO gts. It is further case of the petitioner that her name is recorded as pattadar and 2 possessor ,)l :he subject lands and she is dciing r r-tl,ivation and -i receivinl:; various incentives sanctioned by thc Go',crnment from \.j time to tim,r

3. \I,'hile 1.he matter stood thus, RespondenL \o 4-Tahsildar initiated ar enquiry under Section 3(2) of the Telangaea Assigned Lands (l']rohr bitron of Transfers) Act, lg77 (fc,r sh rrt, "POT Act, 1,977"),,:rni ir;sued a notice dated 07.1O.2O16, statiLrrs that the land admeasrrrin;1 l\c.1-00 gts in Sy.No.671 was kepl fallo.r,rrnd that the assigne€ hrLd 'riolated the assignment conditions br no: cultivating the iand. S ,,r trsequently, Form-l and Form-ll noticesi were issued to the petitlor.rc.l ald the original assignee unde- Proceedings No.B/8O2a,'..)C 16 dated 3l.lO.2016, on the gr,rru1,i that the petitioner 1r:Lc acquired the assigned land tn viola,ion of the conditions cl the assignment patta granted under the pOT Act,

1977. As; thl c,riginal assignee, Bantu Swamy, had alre ady expired by the tirne tl-u: notice was issued and had no leqal hcrrs,, the notice was affu;ecl on the land in the presence of witnesst:s. I n response, the petrtioner submitted explanation dated 15. 1 1 .1:tO 16. After conducting an enquiry, Respondent No.4 passed ;rn order vide Proceedi;rgs Nc.B/8024/2016 dared 19.12.2Ot6, stari-rg that, out of the total exter t of Ac.4-00 gts, the petitioner had sokl Ac.1-05 gts to one Bollam \/t:nkatamma, W/o. Raju, in violation of t l-re conditions J of the assignment. It was further stated in the said order that the petrtloner is neither the pattadar nor related to the original assignee-Bantu Swamy, and that she was claiming possession of Ac.3-O0 gts on the ground that it was given to her as PasLpukunkuma. However, she was found to be in unauthorised possession of Ac.4-00 gts of assigned land. The Respondent No.4 further observed that both the petitioner and the assignee had violated the terms and conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No. i406 dated 25.07.195g, and consequently, the lands assigned to Bantu Swamy and in possession of the petitioner were resumed to Government custody. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 4,A of the pOT Act, tgTZ on the file of Respondent No.3. After examining the material on record. the Respondent No.3 dismissed the appeal vide Proceedings No.D2l l3l /2012 dated 06.05.2O17, observing thar the petitioner had admitted to receiving Ac. 1_00 gts assigned to Bantu Swamy, but failed to fire any documentary evidence to estabrish that she was the legal heir of the original assignee. She arso admitted that she alienated an extent of Ac.1-05 gts in favour of Bollam Venkatamma out of Ac.3-OO gts allegedly assigned to her. The Respondent No.3 held that the actions of the petitioner were in violation of the conditions of assignment and contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the POT Act, 1977, and accordingly, upheld the order of \. t- I i I I i ! t : t 4 Respondertt No.4 for resumption of the land in frvour of the - filed a revlslon GoverrrmenLt. Challenging the same, the petition€r '..j vicleNr>.Ir.2,'lgo4l2OlTunderSectionaB(l)oithePrfTAct'1977 Upon consideraticn cl the record, beforc th: IlesPondent No'2 the Revision Case v idt orcler dated Respotrdenr No.2 dismissed 31.03.2018, holding that 'the petitioner had alienalerl a portion of the land assigned in her favour and failed to establist' that she was the aCoJrtc'tl daughter or srlccessor-in-in tcrest of the original assignee. Nl,rreover, no evidence was placed to sh')w that the land u,as u nder cultivatlon. Th s (lourt has carefully considered the su bn Lissions of the 4. learnld t:tt'rnsel for the petitioner, the learned Go"ernment Pleader for A ssilgt n-rent appearing for the respondcnts 'u-rti perused the reCOr,:i [t is seen from the record that land admeastrrrng Ac 3 00 gts 5. in 31 . Nc .6.i' I of Suryapet Village was assigned t o t[ e petitioner as Iandl:ss rsor person vide Proceedings No G'/ 3t;2 l2OOl dated 31.0:i.2001 , As per the freld verification' a report r'r'zLs submitted by the Vil1a gy: Revenue Ofhcer (VRO) and Mandal Gir'la''var stating that the satcl lrtnd was kept fallow since allotment 'r n I the pahanies refle,:;t -h aL no crops were cultivated, with Cr'lu rrns shou'ing1 l'-re land as fa11ow (padava) With r'3s'p€ ct to 18 to 24 the land 5 admeasuring Ac. 1.00 gts assigned to Bantu Swamy, the petitioner failed to hle any document to prove that she is the adopted daughter or the legal heir of the original assignee. No evidence was placed on record to establish when the alleged adoption took place nor any valid document produced in support of such claim. The Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 is a benehcial legislation enacted as a measure of social justice, intended to provide livelihood to landless poor persons. Lands assigned under the Act are heritable but not alienable, and are to remain in the cultivation of the assignee or their family members. Section 2(6) of the POT Act defines "transfer" in a manner that does not exclude testamentary dispositions, and this provision must be understood in light of the object and purpose of the Act, which prohibits induction of strangers into assigned iands, either during the lifetime of the assignee or thereafter. If assigned lands are allowed to be transferred by will, adoption deeds, or other testamentary instruments, the very purpose of the Act would be frustrated. Even if a will is executed by the assignee, any bequest in favour of strangers is invalid and hit by Section 2(6) of the Act. Moreover, such testamentary dispositions would also fall foul of the principles under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In the present case, the petitioner is in possession of Ac. 1.0O gts of land originally assigned to Bantu Swamy, claiming to be his adopted daughter, but she has j I i I -t I 11 i i ! 6 not p)l'o(h-Lced any admissible evidence to supporr he _ claim. Sofaras the l,:rnd .lc:measuring Ac.3_0O gts assigned to he,r rs concerned, it is reve e led I'-r,.m the recorrl that the petitioner has al enated Ac.l.05 gts tr llol am Venkatamma W/o Raju. The p:tir_ioner has nor specr ical.,- denied this alienation, and the records also establish that hc l:rrrd was not under active cultivation, as pt,r the pahanies prodr c€.(i lrefore the Respondent No.2 The C.ol ernment, vide G.O.tr,Is I,l:r.:255, Revenue (LR) Department, cl:: t er i lO.O3.7gg2. direct,:d rl tcgration of Village Accounts (pahan ir s) to reflect the naturrr oi lands, crop cultivation, survey nurr be rs,. names of pattacrars; r. nd occupiers, cist payable, and sourcr: of irrigation. The impugnt'rl o-der dated 31.03.201g passed by the ller.;pondent No.2 records thi t the land in question is fallow/pacltri a, rvith no crop particr rl:u s; r:n tered in Columns lg to 24 of the pa;ranies. These facts r.lear.i.r establish that the petitioner is noL < nt itled to claim Ac.1.0() gr.s assigned to Bantu Swamy as his adoptire laughter, and that she lrrts alienated part of her own assigneri land, thereby violatir: g thc assignment conditions. 6- Th. i ir,rve rrndings satisfy the requirements lb - c,ancelarion of the assignrrLent granted in favour of the petitloner, a,; her actions are in r,:clat.ion of the policy guidelines laic down by the Governllcrlr irr G.O.Ms.No.14O6 dated 2S.O7.lg1g zrrLd [he statutory -.*.,-ry--,::-:'_ :l .7 7 authorities have considered the entire material and passed reasoned orders. Therefore, the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal inlrrmities warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is devoid o[ merits and is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. SRI V. HARI PRASAD EPUTY R SECTION OFFICER 'l . one CC to SRt pAgHAM RAVTNDRA REDDY, Advocate [opUC] 2 lyq CCs to-GPJOR ASSTGNMENT, High Court forthe State of Tetangana at 3 Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] / t r E i To, BSR SS 9A!4. HIGH COURT DATED:091AU2025 h r ! I I l I \ ;1 ORDER WP.No.10764 of 2019 1(4 Ha STq r,: 0 B l\JN ius p o ( q o O t D .e1., p,41 ;, tli )'' -::=:= =- DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ,4\g\"{