High Court · 2025

3. Kovva Srisailam, S/o. Late Kor.wa Rangaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Thummalur Village, Maheshwaram Maldal, Ranga Reddy District

4. Ko,,,va Srinivas, S/o. Late Kowa Rangaiah, Aged about 28 years,- Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Thummalur Vlllage, Maheshu,aram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

5. Kowa Lakshmaiah, S/o. Late Kowa Muthaiah, Aged about 26 years, Occ : Private Serr/ice, R/o. Thummalur Viliage, Maheshwzrram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 6- Kor''va Shiva Kumar, S/o. Late Kowa Muttraiai, Aged about 24 years, Occ : Private Service R/o. Thummalur Village, Maieshwaram Mandal, . Ranga Reddy District / Petitioners (Contd...2 ',]

7. Amarlaganti Ravinder Rert.r ij:; 1T" "" g_, i i:."i],,li.,jar. rttsco aDout 4g years. O".. i n7.. e r.c. .;i"lr,LIfi,.?r?irr, Ql ,, Shamshabad. derabad ' *l*,*-ffi#,,?:#i:*xh Manda,, (Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 are not necessary parties to this *.:. ^,_^.. lutition under Article 226 of the Constitutic ctrcumstances stated in "",::::;"0""," / trfi#ffi fr pi,l;'*$'*+i[+ru;mxs,,.h# il.Jl,:l#Iff illlil,.".ilX?:;",;,;il;i;;"T;iy.ff :ffJ:;,ff ,".",*.ff",,:"J;l/ t.A. NO: 10F 2010(WPMP.N O: 31919 0F2010) Petition under Section 15i GpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitton the High Courl may be pleased direct the Respondent No.1 not to dispossess or otherwise interfere with the possessi on of the Petilioners in respect of their lan ds admeasurin g Ac. 'l 5.05 Gts., 29 1 of Thummalur Village, Maheshwara m Mandal, RangaReddy District IA NO: 10F 20 19 in Sy.No. IJCtrvccn l Ar))anaganri Madhava Reddy (Died) pcr L.Rs. Anrarraganti Rajasek_har Reddl ),ljlI,lql,,, Madhava Reddy, i.f", i.:i,-11.1::rs. occ : rmploli,e, t-t. tE2./v/ l/56. litar No..:r02, i:':.',1 R*,^d".r:y. Var shati Nagar. ,1ll'1i1 ( nampapet. Saidabad, I Iyderabad A. Kavjtha, W/o. Aluka Sadananda kedd1,. li"O^rlo:, 39 years. Oec: I lousewire, tUo. R.T.C. Colony. Champafcr. H.,rierabad. ):.flr:*. Kumar. S/o N. Gou,rau h, l:"1 :9.r,32 years. Occ : Agrieutiure, l( ro. I {. No. 8_9_214. Chandray-r,,g.,,", Hyderabad A I\I L) I hc Tahrildar.. Maheshwaram Nlanrlal, Ranga Redd-v Districr. At Thurn, trr*.rr" *r,,"Vr;; :;rr-:H::il Jlh::: PetitioncrsA'etitioners b.ovva Kaltlulu- 5/o. Late NOVVa JarrgalSn' i".d ahout 5l vears, Occ : Agricul'urc' ii[. rfutrn*fu villagc' Maheshuaram l\landal' Ranga ReddY District Kovva Srisailatn, S/o- L'ate Kovva Ilangaiah' Aged about 32 years, Occ: Agr;culture' iii-}i-'","-J,i. vitiage, Maheshwararn Ivlandal' l{anga ReddY District l.ovvc Srinivas. S/o. I ate Kovva Rangaiah' ,\!:ed ahout l8 years. Occ: Agrict'lturc' iiio. tt'',,,n*nlrt Village' Nlaheshwararrr lvlandal' Ranga ReddY District Kowa [,akshtnaiah, S/o' Late Kovva Muthaiah' ,\qi,.l ah,,ut ltr years. Occ : Private Scrvicc' iil, rr',rt',',,"t* \'illage' Mehcshu rrra;rr Nlundul' l<rnge RcdtlY l)istlict' Kowa Shiva Kumar, S/o' Late Kovva Muthaiah, Aned about 24 years' Occ : Private liervice ni,r. inun*utut village' Maheshwrrram Mandal' Ranga ReddY District 1 Amanaganti Ravinder Reddy, S/o Arnanaganti Venkal Reddy' eg.J ,E r,48 years. Occ: E'O'R D' S,[amshahad' ru-o. n.f.C. Colony' Champapet' H1'tlerabad A. Sumathamma, Wo. Late A' Cnverdhan Reddy' Aued about 42 years, Occ: Agricultrrrc' ni-r. fnu,nrutu. Village' Maheshwlram Mandal' Rarrga Reddy District .. ..Respondents/Respondents The Slate ofTelangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Respondent/ Proposcd Respondcnt No'9 5 () l 8 9 !t i' s :, . / ' petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the pe^tition, in" Hign court may be pleased to lmplead the proposej-dJtpono"nt No s.nerei; as Rispondent No'g in above Writ petition ,no con."q=r".nity il;ili;; inierlocutory applications pending there tn Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI' M V DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No'1: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos'2'5&6: M/s' S' MADHAVI Counsel forthe Respondent NO'3: SRI JANARDHAN AKULA Counsel for the Respondent NO'4: SRI PONAMPELLI RAVI Counsel for the Respondent Nos'7&8: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE ON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE N.V H .SHRAVAN KUMAR IVrit Pet tion No.24973 of 20IO I t ORDER: The present writ petition is filed to call for records in File No.B/4029 /2OOB, dated 02.O8.2O10 on the file of respondent No.1 and consequently set-aside the same as iliegal, arbitrar5r, without juriSdiction, violation of principles of natural justice 2 Facts in brief,as stated are that petitioner Nos.l, 2 and 4 claims to be, the owners ald possessors of land admeasuring Ac.15.05 Gts., in Sy.No.291 of Thumma_lur Village, Maheshwaram Manda,l, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter, referred as ,s ubject propert5z).

3. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1, respondent No.7 and the husband of respondent No.g have jointly purchased the subject property under registered sale deed bearing document No.g56 6f lgZO, dated 19.10.1970 f,rom original pattedars ald possessors and out of the entire extent of Ac.15.05 Gts., the petitioner No.4 purchased Ac.2.23 Gts from petitioner no.I under registered sa-le deed, bearing document No.23O6 of 2O01, dated l2.Og.2OO1, registered 2 before Sub Registrar, at Maheshwaram Manda'l, Ranga reddy District and subsequently, in the joint famiiy partition' the remaining extent of Ac'12 '22 Gts out of the total extent of Ac.15.05 Gts, fell to the share of the petitioner No'1 along with several other properties, and the same was also recorded by the respondent No'1 in proceedings No'D2 1/04' dated l7.o|.2oo4.ThereaJter,anoralpartitiontookplacebetween petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos'2 and 3' u'herein arr extent of Ac.S.OO Gts out of the total Ac'12'22 Gts fell to the share of petitioner No.2, while 'tLe remaining Ac'7 '22 Gts fell to the share of petitioner No' 1, and several other properties fell to the share of petitioner No'3' It is further submitted that name of petitioner No.2 was mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings No'D/97212004' dated 26'07'2OO4 and the name of petitioner No'4 was mutated in.the revenue records vide proceedings No'D I 2760 /2001' dated 26'Og'2OOl' Therea-fter' the revenue authorities also issued pattedar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioner Nos' l' 2 and 4' It is submitted that at the instance of respondent Nos' 2 to 6 respondent No.1 had initiated proceedings under Section 4(1) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act' 1977 (hereinafter called as 'the ActJ and declared the sale deed ' ' J bearing document No.g56 of 1970, dated 16. lO.lgZO as null arld void and also passed resumption orders in File No.B/aO29 l20Og, dated O2.Og.2OlO and the sarne was served on the petitioners on 22.Og.2OlO, which is being questioned in the present writ petition.

4. In the grounds urged, in the writ petition, it is submitted that the impu[rred proceedings are without jurisdiction as there is absolutely no material to show that the land in question is an assigned land and respondent No.1 failed to conduct any, enquiry, despite the petitioners having fiied detailed objections and counter denying that the lands in question are assigned lands. That the respondent No.1 having recorded a finding that the petitioners have failed to produce any evidence and no record of assignment is available, ought to have dropped the proceedings as being without jurisdiction and respondent No.l gravely erred and stating that in the absence of documentary evidence, the entries in Faisal patti can be taken as a secondar5r evidence. That, the findings of respondent No.l are perverse and illegat, the respondent No.1 ought to have ensurerl the existence of the jurisdictional fact before invoking the Act, as repeatedly held by this Court and respondent No. 1 failed to follow the judgement cited before 4 I itioners him, including those reported in 2008 (5) ALD 626 and 2OO9 (4) ALT (DB) 1' which amounts to colourable exercise of power and a fraud on power. rt is also urged that Respondent No.1 also failed to consider that the land in question does not fa1l within the definition of assigned land under Section 2(1) of the Act and without determining the jurisdictiona'l fact based on the material on record' respondent No'1 proceeded to resume the land' That the respondent No'1 also failed to see that the land in question was computed to the holding of the pet after enquiry and on the basis of the report of the Tahs the Land Reforms Tribunal and that ttre State has treated the said land as Patta land of the petitioners' rendering the impugned proceedings without any juri That Respondent N o ' 1 also failed to see that the to the and title deeds werti already issued under Section 6-A of the A'P'Rights in Land and ass Books Act, 1971' which shows that the subject land is a Private patta land belonging to the petitioners and records contrary to rebut the statutory there are no presumption' It is also urged that Respondent No'1 failed to see that no show cause notice under Section 3(2) of the Act was issued as mandated by the Judgment of the Division Pattedar P petitioners Passbooks sdiction. ildar bY Pattedar therebY alwaYs ) Bench of the Hon'ble High court in w.p.No. L4T9s of20o5 and batch dated O2.OT.2OO8 (2OO8 (S) ALD 262, and that Respondent No. t has no jurisdiction to decrare the sa-le deed bearing Document No.g56 of 1920, dated 16. IO.I}ZO, as null and void. That Respondent No.1 is only a quasi_judicial authority and cannot assume the role of a Civil Court to pass such orders by invoking the 'provisions of the specilic Relief Act, particularly after a long lapse of time i.e., more than 38 years from the date of purchase by the petitioners or their predecessor.

5. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 died on 06.08.2010 and the property devolved on petitioner Nos.2 and 3, as such they are entitjed to question the MRO proceedings in Fiie No.B/aO29/2008, dated 02.O8.2OlO.

6. A Counter has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6, wherein it is stated that respondent Nos.2 to 6 are the successors of originar assignee and also their names have been entered into the revenue records and petitioners are neither the owners and possessors of the subject land nor their narnes are recorded in the revenue records and the petitioners have made unsubstantiated claim. It is further submitted that once the land is declared as assigned land, the provisions of 6 the A.P. Assigrred Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act squarely apply. Therefore, eventua'lly prayed this Court to dismiss writ petitron

7. A Counter has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1, wherein it is stated that the petitioner claims that land bearilTg Sy.No'2914, measuring Ac'15'O5 gts'' situated at Thurnmaloor Village, Maheshwaram Mandal' Ranga Reddy District, was assigned to one Sri Narsaiah under the Speciai Loan Rules, prior to the issuance of G'O'Ms'No' 1406' Revenue Department, dateQ 27'05'1958' However' the petitioner failed to produce any copy of the assignment certilicate in support of this claim- In the absence of such primary evidence i'e'' Assignment bearing No'A3/69a8/60' relialce has been placed 6n secondar5l evidence, namely the entries in the Faisal Patti for theyear 1960-61' It is further submitted that as seen from the said Faisa'l Patti for the year 1960-6f it is evident that l.Kowa Narayana S/o' Kowa Muthaiah 2' Kowa Jangaiah S/o. Narayana arld 3.Kovva Rangaiah S/o' Narayana' were assigned an to extent of Ac'4' 15 gts', each total measuring Ac. 13.05. gts., in Sy.No.291 of Thummaloor Village vide patta certificateNo.6940,dated23.O1'lg6lissuedbytheTahsildar' 1516himpatnam and the said assignments were approved by 7 the Nazim-e-Jamabandi in the said Faisal patti as Loani Ijafa as such it is clearly evident that the subject larld was not assigned to grandfather of the petitioners but assigned to above persons during the year 1960 i.e., after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue Dated 27.05.1958 arrd that as per the pahali 1950-51 of Tummaloor Vilange, the land in Sy'No.291 admeasuring Ac. 13:05 gts., is Government larrd and classihed as ..Gairal,, Sarkari and name of one Naraya:ra was recorded under possession column and said entries continued in the patranis for the years 1952_53, Sessala Pahani for the year 1955_58. In the pahani for the year lgZO_ 77, the names of Narayana S/o pentaiah, Jalgaiah S/o Narayana and Rangaiah S/o Narayarra have been recorded as pattadars and occupants over the Sy.No.291 measuring Ac. 13.05 gts. of Tummaloor village of the.subject property. The entire pahanis clearly establishes that the assignees/ legal heirs have sord away the assigned lands in contravention to the conditions of assignment and provisions of the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, l9ZZ. (Herein referred as ActJ. B. It is further submitted that basing on the common judgment passed by this Court in W.p.Nos.3B72 of l97B and ) 8 batch, the Government while taking into consideration of the said judgment had issued Memo No'515OllBll78lRev' Dept'' dated. 06.03.1979, Memo No'2855/B1l 1979-llRev' Dept'' dated 27.08.7979 and Memo No'3576'Bll8O2-Rev(B) Dept'' datedo3.o4.lg8l,whereinitisclqarlymentionedthatallthe transactions made prior to the enactment of the Act' the provisionsofsections3oftheAct,willapplyassuchthesaid provisions are applicable to this case also' The Government in its G.O.Ms.No.1835 .Revenue (Assn'I) Department dated all the villages of ll.02.2006 inad already notified that District, have been Maheshwaram Manda'l, Ranga ReddY notifred under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfersl Act' 1977 ' for the purpose of initiating action under the said Act' Similarly' vide G.O.Ms.No.289, Revenue (Assn' POT) Department' dated 08.03.2007, the Government has clarifred that the subject property can be utilized for any public purpose' g. In view of the above, it was established beyond any doubt that there has been a clear violation of the provisions of Section 3(1), (2), and (3) of the A'P' Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Trarrsfers) Act, 1977 and that the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, had rightly initiated action 9 under the provisions of the said Act by issuing the necessary notices and resuming the assigned lands vide proceedings No.B/4O29/2008, dated O2.O8.2O\O. It is further submitted that petitioners herein are the illegal purchasers of the assigned iands in the contravention of the conditions of assignment and provisions of the Assigned Lands (pOT) Act, 7977, as such the Tahsildar, has rightly resumed back the subject larrds under the above Act vide said proceedings. It is further submitted that the,.subject land was assigned to (3) persons in file 6940, dated 23.0I.1961 by the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam ald the said assignments were approved by the Nazim-e-Jamabandi in the said Faisal patti as Loani Ijafa. Eventua_lly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the subject rand is part and parcel of the decraration made by Sri Madhava Reddy, who is petitioner No.l. He would further submit that the jurisdictional fact of whether the larrds are assigned lands, as defined under the provisions of the A.p. Assigned Lands (prohibition of Transfers ) Act, 19ZZ , was not established in the impugned order dated 02.0g.2010. Additionally, according to the Land Reforms Tribunal proceedirrgs dated 2Z .OI.1977 , it was declared that the I i I I I 1 . r i I l 10 petitioner's father, Sri Madhava Reddy' was a non-surplus holder, and the subject land in Sy'No'29 1 was not declared as surplus and the inspection report received from the Tahsildar' Ibrahimpatnam, also confirmed that the said lands were declared by the petitioner's father' Learned counsel would further submit that the said lands have been verified by the Tahsildar, after conducting enquiry under Rules 4 and 5 of the Land Reforms Act, 1974 and since the said property was previously declared by ihe petitioners and their father and was computed as part qf their land' there was no occasion for the Tahsildar to question its classification and that there is no evidence indicating that the said lands are assigned lands' The respondent No.1 had an opportunity to verify the earlier records considering the declaration made by the petitioners' Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the subject lands are clearly assessable under the declarant's holdings, and the orders passed in the Land Reforms Tribunal proceedings are binding on the Tahsildar' 1 1 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents' YSIscONCLUSI ON:

12. The impugned proceedings in fiIe Andhra pradesh No.B/4029/2OO8, dated O2.OB.2O1O, are issued by the respondent No.1. The case was fiied under Section 4(l) of the Assigned Lands (prohibit. lon of Transfer) Act' 1977, by the petitic rners against the respondents (in the said proceedings) for recovery of th. possession of land in Sy.No.291 extent of Acs. 15.05 Gts., situated at Tummalur Village, Maireshwaram Mandai. The relief sought by the petitioner are that to pass orders in favour of the petitioners against respondents by declaring title ald possession over the petition schedule propert5z as null and void and to errict the respondents from the possession of schedule property ard put the petitioners on the physicat possession over the petition schedule land arrd in support of their case certain documents were relied upon the petitioner. The respondents, who are petitioners herein also filed counter with the supporting material papers. In the orders of the MRO, dated O2.Og. 2O1O, it is observed that the petitioners have failed to prove that Narsaiah grand father of the petitioners has been assigned land in Sy.No.29l extent Acs. lS.O5 Gts of Tumma-lur Village under Special Laoni Rules and had also not produced a copy of 1 I I t2 ntentions and to the Due to pro!'151Ons that Narsaiah the assignment Certificate in support of their co similarly, the respondents also failed to prove was assigned said land under Special Laoni Rules prror enforcement of the G'O'Ms'No' 1406' dated 27'05' 1958 /60, the thenonavailabilityofassignmentfileNo.A3/6948 the entries have been taken into secondarY evidence of the Government Memo dated consideration and as Per 03.04.1981, all the assignments made prror to the enactment of Andhra Pradesh Aesigned Lands (POT) Act' 1977 ttl,e of SectiPn 3 of the Act will aPPIY' as such the present case filed by the petitioners will also attract the provisions of the Section 3 of the Act and held that the petitton frled by the petitioners under Section a(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (POT) Act' L977 is not maintainable and petitioners can not seek any relief and the lands in Sy.No.291 extent Acs'15'05 gts' situated at Tumma-tur cannot be restored to the petitioners' It is further observed that there is a clear violation of the Provisions of Section 3(1)(2) and (3) of the A.P.Assigned Land (POT) Act, 1977 ' by the original assignee, who have alienated the subject lands vide Registered Sale Deed No.856 of l97O dated 16'10'L97O in favour of A.Madhava Reddy, respondent No. 1 (petitioner No' t herein is i3 Proceedings) and his 3 petitioners :;;,;: the impugned '' original assignme t^/tq/ ur tne Act' In the result, the -..il:'ffi :':; :il::I: the respondent brothers a,,d ,*o'' 23'o7'196ln.."rn" Governmen r,,o]] ;:,:il*:::* case was ra.i^^. , ff ":".::# i. a,, area .f ;"# ::j:,," .;;iT, :.:;-,*ed he respondent Nos. i red salg. deed No.23O6 of 2OO7, dated 12.09.2001, it vl,as held,that no person can transfer a better title what he himself has ald the respondent No.l and his brothers who have purchased the said land through the sa.le deed No'g56 0f 1g70 is vitiated by the law and decrared as nuri and void under Section 3(2) ot the A.p. Assigned Land (pOT) Act, 7927 and thereby respondent No.4 cannot acquire the title over the said property in Sy.No.29I over an extent of Acs.2.23 Gts of land and such claim of the respondent No.4 was also rejected. The Tahsildar_respondent No.1 in the writ petition, eventually held that the sale deed No.g56 of 197o was declared aS nuli and void and vitiated by law under Section 3(1)(1)(3) of A.P Assigned Lands (POT) Act' 1977 and the Petitioners are not entitled to arry relief under Section (1) of the A'P Assigned I I I i 14 pOT) Act and the claim of the petitioner was rejected and Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer' T\rmmalur Village was authorised to resume the land in Sy.No.291 extent Acs'15'05' Gts' Situated at Tammalur Village under a cover of Panchanama and to keep the sard land under the safe custody of ttre Government till further orders' 13' In view of the submissions made by the petitioners and respondents and that there are disputed questions of the facts and complex i""'"" pertaining to the subject lands' this Court is of considered opinion that the Mandal Revenue Officer is not empowered to declare a sale deed as invalid and it is only the competent Civil Court that call make such declarationalteradetaiied.inquiryandonexaminationof evidence presented by the parties concerned in the Sale Deed Document No. 856 of 1970, dated 16'10'1970 and the same also cannot be done at the discretion of the Land Reforms Tribunal proceedings, especially when it has already been established that there is no surplus land held by the petitioners.

14. It is pertinent to note that the Tahsildar-respondent No.l being the custodian of records without verifying the -_ I5 .-,. :'---t prlmar-y evidence has decided on the issues based on the secondary evidence and even after the cor: considerable number of judgments of this o"tt *o Hon'ble Supreme court of India ".,,", observed that mere . :ntries in revenue records does not conlirm any right a,,d title over the Iand by the person who claims the said lard arrd that h.e has to prove how he acquired the said Iand and whether the land in question is patta lald or assigned land ? However, the Tahsildar only considered the secondary evidence and couid not establish whether the lands in question are assigned lands or patta lands? The findings recorded by the respondent No.l lacks coherence ald claritv and do not offer any conclusive determination on the core issues which vr,.as under consideration while passing the impugned order.

15. In view of the preceding analysis, the proceedings No.B/4029 l2OO8, dated O2.Og.2OlO are hereby set aside and no useful purpose would be served to remit the matter to respondent No. 1, for further adjudication wherein the subject I land is kept in the custody of the Government. Hence, this Court, consrdering the nature of disputed facts and lack or evidence and ttre cornPlexitY of cannot be decided on affrdavits proper aPPreciation involved' wtrictt issues 1 -l 16 deems it appropriate to relegate the parties to the jurisdiction of the competent civil Court' wherein an effective and comprehensive adjudication based on proper evidence can be undertaken in accordance with law'

16. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case to the extent of rights ald possession of the respective parties on the subject property. t7. With the above direction, this writ petition stands DISPOSED. Miscellaleous, petitions' pending' if any' shall closed. However, there shalt be no order as to costs' SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG SISTANT RE GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

2. J 4 E One CC to SRl. M V DURGA PRASAD Advoc One CC to M/s. S MADHAVI Advocate IOPUCI One CC to SRI PONAMPELLI RAVI Advocate [OPUCI tO SRI JANARDHAN AKULA AdVOCAIC [OPUC] O"" loPUCl "" TwoCCstoGPFoRASSIGNMENT'HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana touTl

6. Two CD CoPies qP KKS GJP HIGH COURT DATED:25 tO2tZO2S i! ORDER WP.No.24973 of 2O1O a oR 1HE S t4 o,, 11 i'UE nn o (J L ,.n * )l DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Q*- \