Writ Petition No. 21467 of 2023 · The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Mr. Prabhakar Peri, leamed counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General appearing for respondents

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent No. 3 in proposing to conduct e-auction on 10.08.2023 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 of Budvel Village Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as part of Plot Nos. 14 and 15 ( for short, the subject property'), without issuance of notice, as illegal; to declare inaction of the respondent Nos.2, 4 to 6 in considering the representations filed by the petitioners for rectification of revenue records as illegal; consequently dilect the respondent No:3 not to conduct any auction/e-auction in respect of the land of father of the petitioners on 10.08.2023, not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of father of the petitioners over his land, to consider the representations submitted by father of the petitioners for rectification of entries in the revenue records and mutating their names in rcvenue rccords. , / 2

3. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONERS IN BRIEF:- They belong to Scheduled Caste commurrity. Their father is landless poor.

11. Govemment has taken over possession or'surplus land to an extent of Ac. 281.61 guntas belonps to Raufuddin Hussain and Zakia Hussain, vid : proceedings No.CC/41 ll75 and,CCl4l2l75 of Land Rt'forms Tribunal, Hyderabad West Taluk, Ranga Reddy t)istrict, in terms of provisions of the A.P. Land Reforns (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1973). l ll. The land admeasuring Ac.4.l9 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 situated at Budwel Village, Raj endra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter refered to as 'the subject property'), was allotted to thrr father of the petitioners l.e Sri Korani Ganesh, in the year 1978 subject to payment of Rs.375l- as per S:ction 14 (2) of the Act, 1973 in 13 equal annual instalments to the i J Government within 15 years from the date of the said allotment. lv. Their father paid the said amount and became absolute owner and possessor of the land. His name was also mutated in the revenue records. Pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in favour of their father. His name was also reflected in the I-B Register and pahanies. However, due to reasons best known to their father, in the pahanies, after 1997-98, subject land is mentioned as 'Kharij khata' but their father's name was not mentioned. Father of the petitioners has submitted several representations including representations dated

22.11.2019,08.02.2020 to the respondentNos.4 to 6 with a request to include his name in the pahanies. The same were not considered. VI The said land was not acquired for any other purpose and resumption proceedings were not passed. vlt. They placed reliance on the information obtained by them under RTI Act. In the year 1997, show cause notices were -_:--:-"r:,e.e- 4 issued to the allotees of land in Sy.No.282 -o 289 alleging violation of the rules and proposing to resl tme possesslon of the land. However, his father did not receive any such notice. The allottees who received the nc'tices filed writ petition vide W.P.No.8612 of 2000 quest oning the said notices. The said notices were set aside permitting the petitioners therein to submit explanations. 5th respondent passed proceedings No. D1330112000, daled 15.11'2002' Challenging the said proceedings, 23 alltrttees filed writ petition vide W.P.No.2412012002. Vid: order dated

30.04.2008, this Court set aside the said proceedings holding that the 5'h respondent - RDO, F-ajendra Nagar, did not follow the procedure laid down un'rler law. vlll. In the month of March/Aprll,2023' some of the officials of the Revenue Department came to thei' house and the subject land asking them to sign cerain documents relinquishing their rights on the said land but the petitioners have refu sed. I 5 3'd respondent has erected hoarding in the said area proposing to sell 100 acres ofland by dividing them into t4 plots proposing to conduct e-auction on28.082023. x The petitioners came to know about the subject land forming part of the plot Nos.14 and 15 was proposed to be auctioned. On enquiry, they came to know that 3'd respondent has issued a paper notification in leading daily newspaper on 02.08.2023 proposing to conduct auction of 100 acres consisting of 14 plots by e-auction dated r 0.08.2023. Challenging the said auction, the petitioners filed the present writ petition contending that they are 1n possession of the subject property. No resumption proceedings were issued, the subj ect land was not acquired by respondents by following the due procedure laid down under law and thus conducting auction of the said properties on 10.08.2023 is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the procedure laid down under law. 6 xIl. They also specifically contend that their father is suffering with paralysis and he is in hospital and therefore he is not in a position to sign the 'vrit affidavit' 4. Whereas, respondent Nos'2' 4 to 6' hled counters contended as follows:- I ll. The land in question falls in Sy'Nos'288 ''o 289 situated in Budwel Village, Rajendra Nagar l\Iandal' Ranga Reddy District. Total extent of the said larrd of 281'61 is in the names of Raufuddin Hussain and Zakia Hussain' The said land is declared as ceiling sulplus land' The same was taken over by the Govemment under the Act' t973. i ii. The same was assigned to 66 lanclless Poor for agricultural PurPose' iv. The father of the petitioners is also rne of the 66 asslgnees. In the year 1997, a notice was issuec' to all the 66 assignees including the father of the petitioners' for violation of assignment rules. o 7 v1. As they failed to cultivate the lands, made the said land into plots in contravention of the provisions of the assignment of lands under the Act, 1973, the said land was resumed by following the procedure laid down under law. VTI After passing the resumption orders, respondents evicted all the 66 assignees in Sy.Nos.282 to 2991P of Budwel Village, and resumed the same as per the orders of the RDO, Chevella Division vide F.No. D15062197, dated t7.04.t998. v1ll. 165 acres in Sy.No.282 to 290 and 296/P falling in Budwel Village, was taken over possession by the then HUDA on26.12.2007.

Vide G.O. Ms. No.13, Industriei and Commerce (IP and INF) Department, dated 10.06-2021, govemment has issued instructions on disposal of Govemment vacant lands under the control of various departments in the State which are not required for any public purposes. 8 x Since they are in prime locations, pron(i to unauthorized encroachments, an extent of land adr easuring Ac.100 was made into layouts comprising 17 plots. The same was put to auction. xt. Therefore, the petitioners cannot file the present writ petltlon. xll. The RDO, Chevella has issued Memo J.lo. C1348312012 dated 22.11.2012 to the father of the p:titioners stating that as per the records, the land in Sy Nos.282 to 299 covering an extent of Ac.165.00 guntas ras been allotted to HTIDA and Ac.91.00 guntas was allrtted to Tourism department vide Government Memo No.18539 (Assn.VI) Deptl2009, dated 12.10.2009 and on the ground that the land is under possession of HUDI and Tourism Department. Therefore, the issuance ol passbooks and title deeds with respect of subject prop( rty in favour of the petitioners' father does not arise. xl11 Aggrieved by the orders of RDO, Chevella, vide D15062/1997, the Assignees i.e. Gunti f 'arsimha and 19 9 others, f,rled a writ petition vide W.P.No.8612 of 2000. This Court disposed of the said writ petition setting aside the said proceedings, with a direction to the petitioners therein to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 19.11.1997 and thereafter, directed the RDO, Chevella to pass orders afresh. Till then, the petitioners therein shall not be evicted. xlv. In compliance of the said order, the RDO, Chevella passed order dated 15.1 1.2002 holding that the petitioners therein/Assignees violated the conditions of the assignment. Therefore, the RDO, Chevella, directed the MRO, Raj endra Nagar, to evict the assignees and resume the land and to keep the same under Govemment custody. Challenging the said resumption proceedings dated

15.ll.2OO2, Gunti Narsimha and l9 others/assignees filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.24l20 of 2002. Vide order dated 30.04.2008, this Court set aside the said proceedings on imposition of costs. The petitioners' father is not a party to the same. l0 xvl. Smt. G.Yadamma, one of the Assigneer; also filed writ petition No.23719 of 2003 challenging the proceedings dated 17.04.1998 and the same was also allowed. However, this Court granted liberty to th: respondents to initiate fresh action by following the proc edure laid down under law.

5. The respondents have also filed ad,litional counter contending as follows:- I The petitioners' father is not a party to llre aforesaid two writ petitions and therefore, resumptio:r orders passed against the father of the petitioners attainr d finality. The District Collector, i..e 4th respondent herein vide letter dated 02.11.2007 has handed advance possession of land admeasuring Ac.164.35 guntas in S/.No.282 to 290 and 2961P situated at Budwel Village to HUDA and Ac.91.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.291 to 295, ?.961P,297,298 and 29912 to the Tourism Department 111 Thereafter, the assignees and encroach<rrs have lormed into an Association of land losers, i r the name of 'Arundati Welfare Association (Regd.No.l889 of 2007),of the subject lands, approached the Tahsildar and HUDA requesting to enter into an agreement for a package i.e. 66 Assignees, who have pattadar passbooks shall be given 800 sq.yards in HMDA developed layout in lieu ofthe land lost and for the 82 encroachers who do not possess any title, an extent of 200 sq.yards be allotted. 1V. The said Association represented by its President Sri Kurani Balraj, President, gave consent affidavit on

23.10.2010 in the presence of Sri K.Sadanandun @ K.S.Nandan (Ex-President) stating that they have agreed for the above package for that they undertake to relinquish all their rights over the above lands and abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the Govemment and also withdraw the cases pending in the Courts. The said consent affidavit was handed over to the Members of said Association including the father of the petitioners. t2 v. Vide proceedings dated 31.12.2022, 4th respondent /District Collector demarcated the lzrnd and given possession to Assignees of 800 sq.yards t,ach and 200 sq. yards each to the encroachers through tpen lottery, as compensation subject to relinquishment of their rights over the land and withdrawal of Court cas es, if any v1 In the said open lottery, father of the petitioners was given 800 sq.yards and the petitioner No. 1 got 200 sq.yards since his name was in enc roachment list. Conveyance deeds were executed in favour of the assignees and encroachers. 1tt petitioner and petitioners' father did not obtain conveyance deeds. vii. The petitioners, having knowledge o the aforesaid proceedings dated 31.12.2022, 26.04.'.'.022, lied the present writ petition. Therefore, it is devoid of merits.

6. The petitioners filed replies to the cc unter affidavits denying the said allegations. 13

7. Both Sri Prabhakar Peri, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Advocate General made their submissions extensively.

8. Leamed counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the State of Orissa vs. Binapani Deir.

9. Leamed Advocate General places reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Ubain2, Yadaiah vs. State of Telanganal and the Division Bench judgment of this Couft in Yesaiah died by legal heirs vs. Mandal Revenue Officera. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

10. The aforesaid rival contentions and also perusal of the record would reveal that owners of land in Sy.Nos.282 to 289 of Budwel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District i.e. Raufuddin Hussain ard Zakia Hussain, hled declaration under the provisions of the Act, 1973. Vide order dated 27.06.1977, the primary Tribunal determined the said surplus land holding to an AIR t967 SC 1269 (te9'1)'7 SCC 44 {202J ) l0 scc 755 izozrr scc dnLine TS 3 558 l4 extent of289 acres, and declared that the said surp ius land to have vested in the State to be disposed of in terms undr:r Section 14 of the Act. The land admeasuring Ac.4.l9 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 of Budwel Village was allotted to father of the petiti<,ners herein and 65 persons (allottees), under the provisions of the Act, 1973. According to the petitioners, their father had paid i alue of the land in installments as per the said allotment order. The said facts were also admitted by respondent Nos.4 to 6 in thr:ir counter and additional counter. 1 1. Perusat of record would also reveal t:rat the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of father of the petittoners m respect of Ac.4.l9 guntas. His rame was also mentioned in l-B Register and Pahanies. fhereafter, the petitioners' father submitted several representzrtions including representation dated 18.06.2024 and 07.12.2)20 requesting revenue authorities to continue his name in the rer enue records by deteting the same from Karij Khatha. The said v'rit petitions are pending. 15

12. It is also not in dispute that the RDO, Chevetla Division has issued notices to several assignees atleging that they have assigned land to them and SK Developers are making the same into plots. Thus, they have contravened the provisions of assignment under Section 14 of the Act, 1973- The said notices were issued under Section 1a(5) of the Act, 1973. Some of the assignees asserting that notices were served on them and when revenue officials tried to dispossesses them, they filed a writ petition vide W.P.Nos.86l2 of 2000 assailing the notice dated 19'11'1997' Vide order dated 29.09.2ooo,this Court disposed of the said writ petition setting aside the said notice dated 19.11.1997 and permitting the petitioners herein to submit explanations within the stipulated time and directed the respondents therein to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioners in the said writ petition filed joint explanation denying the allegations. They have also submitted written representation on 29.10.2002 through their counsel' The same were not considered. However, vide proceedings No.D/3701/2000 dated 15.11.2000, the RDO, Chevella passed resumption orders. Vide order dated 30'04'2008' this Court set 16 aside the resumption proceedings dated 16.11.2002 of RDO, Chevella imposed costs of Rs.2,500/- and also dir,:cted the State or appropriate agency to determine the liability o1 the officer and recover the same from him.

13. Perusal of record would also revea that one Smt. K.Yadamma, assignee filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.9646 of 2000 challenging the resumption order dated I /.04.1998 of 5th respondent herein. The said writ petition was disnrissed vide order dated23.04.2001 granting liberty to the petitioner therein to prefer an appeal. Thereafter, she has filed an appeal before the Joint Collector challenging the said resumption orders. Vide dated 18.10.2003, Joint Collector dismissed the said appeal. Challenging the said proceedings, Smt. Yadarnma filed writ petition vide W.P.No.23179 of 2003. Vide order dated 16.08.2013, this Court allowed the said writ petition setting aside the resumption proceedings dated 17.04.1998 confim.red by the Joint Collector vide proceedings dated 18.10.2003. hov,,ever, this Court granted tiberty to the respondents therein to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the proccdure laid down t7 under law by issuing notice and reasonable opporrunity to the petitioner therein.

14. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners' father is not a party to the writ petition vide W.P.No.8612 of 2000, 24120 of 2002, 23179 of 2003 but it is the specific contention of the petitioners herein that notice was not served on the petitioners' father. The subject land was not resumed from the petitioners' father without following the due procedure laid down under law.

15. According to the respondents 4 to 6, they have also resumed the land by following the due procedure, handed over it to HUDA and Tourism Department

16. ln the light of the said submission, as discussed supra, it is not in dispute that the owners of land in Sy.Nos.282 to 289 of Budvel Village filed declaration in terms of Act, 1973 vide order dated 27.06.1977, primary Tribunal, determined surplus land holding to an extent of 289 acres and declared the surplus land to have vested in the State to be disposed of in terms of Section 14 of the Act, 1973. lt is also not in dispute that the land admeasuring Ac.4.l9 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 of Budwel Village was allotted to l8 the father of the petitioners in terms of Section 14 of the Act, 1973 for the purpose of doing agriculture. If any alienalions effected or other acts done in respect ofany land in violation rf the conditions specified in terms of Sections 14 (4) of the Act, 1973, it shall be null and void and the Tahsildar shall resume the and after giving an opportunity to the persons effected on making 'epresentation in the said behalf.

17. It is also relevant to note that Section 14 ofthe Act, 1973 deals with the disposal of the land vested under the Act, the same is relevant and the same is extracted beiow:-

14. Disposal of land vested in Govemment - (l) The tands vested in the Govemment under this \ct shall be allotted for use as house-sites for agricultural labou-ers, village artisans or other poor persons or"ming no houses or house-sites, or transferred to the weaker sections of the people dr:pendent on agriculture for purposes of agriculture or for purpos es ancillary thereto, in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that as far as may be practicable, r ot less than one half of the total extent of land so allotted or transferred shall be allotted or transferred to the members of th, : Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and out ofthe bala Lce, not less than two-thirds shall be allotted or transferred to tlre members of the backward classes of citizens notified by the ( ]ovemment for purposes of clause (4) of article 15 of the Constit ution. 19 (2) The land allotted to a person for the use of house-site or transferred lor agriculture or for the purposes ancillary thereto, shall be assigned free of cost. (3) xxxx (4) Any transfer of the land under this section shall be subject to- (i) the condition that the land shall not be alienated by the transferee by way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease or in any manner whatsoever otherwise than by way of mortgage in favour of the Govemment a bank or a co-operative society, including a land mortgage bank; and (ii) the condition that where the land transfened is an orchard, the transferee shall continue to maintain such land as an orchard; and (iii) such other conditions as may be prescribed. (5) Any alienation effected or other act done in respect of any land in violation of the conditions specified in sub-section (4) shatl be null and void; and the Tahsildar shall resume the land after giving an opportunity to the persons affected of making a representation in this behalf. (6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Govemment may- (i) tease out any land vesting in them under this Act for such purposes and on such terms and conditions as may be specifred by them; or (ii) reserve such land for any common use or benefit of the community, or, (iii) utilize/sell such lands for infrastructure/industrial development or any such public purpose. 20

18. Thus, ifthere is any violation ofconditions by the father of the petitioners or the other assignees/allottees, re spondents have power to resume the same by following the proce'dure laid down under law including issuing notice and affor ding them an opportunity. The A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibitic,n of Transfers) Act, 1977 ( for short, 'the Act, 1977') also deals wi h the procedure for prohibition of transfer of assigned lands.

19. Section 3 of the Act, 1977 deals witt' prohibition of transfers of assigned lands Section 4 of the said Act, deals with consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3 i.nd the same are extracted below:- Section 3 : Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands - (1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act any land has been assigned by the Govemment to a landless p,ror person for pu.por", of cultivation or as a house-site then, n, rtwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law lor the time being in force or in the deed of transfer or other document relating t,r such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred; and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such tranl fer. (2) No landless poor person shall transfer any assignel land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purch: se, gift, Lease ).1 (except in the case of Lease to the Andhra Pradesh Green Energy Corporation Ltd., for use as deemed frt and including for usage of . non-agriculture purpose), mortgage, exchange or otherwise. 2A. No assignee shall transfer any assigned house site, and no person shall acquire any assigned house site, either by purchase, gift, Lease (except in the case of Lease to the Andhra Pradesh Green Energy Corporation Ltd., for use as deemed ht and including for usage of non-agriculture purpose)], mortgage, exchange or otherwise, till completion of the period of20 years from the date of assignment.

28. Where the assigned House site was alienated by the assignee as on the date of commencement of this Act, such house site shall be regularized in favour of thc alienee as a one-time measure. 2C. The eligibte family shall be assigned house site only once in life (3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provision of sub-section (l) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) shall be deemed to be null and void. (4) The Provisions of this section shall apply to any transaction of the nature referred to in sub-section (2) in execution of a decree or order of a civil court or ofany award or order ofany other authority. (5) Nothing in this section shall apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site on the date of such commencement. ---. 22 Section 4. Consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3 - (1) If, in any case, the District Collector or any oth(r officer not below the rank of a Mandal Revenue Officer, authoris ld by him in this behalf, is satisfied that the provisions of sub-s':ction (I) of section 3, have been contravened in respect of any assi ;ned land, he may, bY order (a) take possession of the assigned land after er icting the person in possession after such written notice as tht Collector or Mandal Revenue Officer may deem reasonable an 1 any crop or other produce raised on such land shatl be liable tr' forfeiture and any building or other construction erectcd o' anything deposited, thereon shall also be forfeited, if not rt moved by him, after such notice, as the Collector or the MandrLl Revenue Officer may direct Forfeitures under this sectior r shall be adjudged by the Collector or Mandal Revenue Officer and any property forfeited shall be disposed of as the Cl rllector or Mandal Revenue Officer may direct; and; (b) (i): reassign the said resumed land, other 'han those lands/areas as may be notified by the Govemment frcm time to time in public interest and for public-purpose, to th( transferee who purchased the land in good faith and for valuable consideration on or before 29th January, 2007, sutiject to the condition that he/she is landless poor person. and is in occupation of the land by using the said land for ag -iculture or as house site, as on the date oftaking possession by t'viction: Provided that the reassignment in case ol transferee shalt be limited to only such an extent that the total holding of ). str. 23 the reassignee including any other land held by him/her does not exceed 5'00 Acres dry land or 2 % Acres wet land: Provided further that where the transferee who has purchased the land and got reassignment of it' or his legal heir' transfers the reassigned land' the tand shall be resumed for assignment to the other eligible landless poor: (ii) restore the said assigned land' other than those lands/areas as may be notified by the Govemment lrom time to time in public interest and for public purpose' to the original assignee' subject to the condition that he or she is landless poor person as on the date ofrestoration for one ttme; or (iii) assign to other eligible landless poor person: Provided that the restoration of land shall be limited to only such an extent that the total holding including any other land held by him/her does not exceed 5 00 Acres dry land or 2 Y, Acres wet [and: Provided fuIlher that where the original assigree or his tegal heir, after first restoration transfers the assigned land' the tand shall be resumed for assignment to the other eligible landless Poor: Provided also that if no eligibte landless poor persons areavailableinthevillage/area,theresumedlandwillbe utilised for Public PurPose' Explanation: For the purpose of this clause "Public lnterest" and "Public Purpose" shall mean and include' the Weaker Section Housing, Public Utitity' Infrastructure Development' I 24 promotion of industries and Tourism or for any other public purpose; C. In the areas which may be notified by Govemm':nt lrom time to time, time, lands resumed under clause 4(a) ab< ve' shall be utilized for Public Purpose' (2) An eviction under sub-section (1) shall be made by serving a notice in the manner prescribed in section 25 of the Ani'hra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Act II of 1864)' or in an' such other manner as the State Govemment may direct, on the person reputed to be in occupation or his agent requiring him within sucl- time as the CollectorortheMandalRevenueofficermaydeemrea:.lonableafter receipt of the said notice to vacate the land' and' if such notice is not obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate to remov3 any person who may refuse to vacate the same, and if the officer r :moving any such person shall be resisted or obstructed by any person' the Collector shall hold a sunmary inquiry into the facts of the case and if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was witl out any just cause and that such resistance or obstruction still co -rtinues' may issue a warrant for arrest of the said person and on hrs appearance commit him to close custody in the office of the Coller tor or of any Mandal Revenue Ofhcer for such period'not exceeding thirty days as may be necessary to prevent the continuance of such obstruction or resistance or may send him with a warrant in the form oIschedule for imprisonment in the civil jail of the District for the like rcriod: Provided that no person so committed or imprisored under this section shall be liable to be prosecuted under section; 183' 186 or 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act No 'r 5 o1- 1860) in respect of the same facts' r -- 25 (3) Any person who unauthorisedly re-enters ald occupies any land from which he was evicted under this section, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend upto six months or with fine upto rupees five thousand or with both. (4). Any order passed in revision under section 48 and subject to such order, the decision in appeal under section 4.{ and subject to the said orders in revision and appeal, any order passed under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law and no injunction shalt be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken by any officer or authority or Govemment in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. (5) For the purposes of this section, where any assigned land is in possession of a person, other than the original assignee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, untit the contrary is proved, that there is a contravention ofthe provisions of sub-section (1) ofsection 3.

44. APPEAL _ (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Mandal Revenue officer under sub-section (l) of section 4,.may within ninety days from the date of receipt by him of such order appeal to the Revenue Divisional Offrcer. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Offrcer under sub-section (1) of section 4 may, within ninety days ftom the date of receipt by him of such order appeal to the District Collector. 26

48. REVISION - (1) The District Collector may in respect of any procecding not being a proceeding covered by sub-section (2) of section 44 on an application made to him and the Govemment may in respect of any proceedings either suo motu or on an application mad: to them, call for and examine the record of any officer subordinate lo him or them to satisfy himself or themselves as to the reguluity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of l'ny decision or order taken or passed therein, and if in any case, it appears to the District Collector or as the case may be to the Goven Lment that any such decision or order should be modified, annulle l, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, they may pass orders accc rdingly: Provided that every application for the exercise of tht powers under this section shall be preferred within ninety days frc'm the date on which the proceeding, decision or order to which 'he application relates was communicated to the applicant. (2) No order adversely affecting any person shall bc passed under sub section (l), unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation. (3) The District Collector or the Govemment as the car e may be, may also suspend the execution of the decision or order pt nding exercise oftheir power under sub-section (1).

20. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 are contend:ng that father of the petitioners and other assignees/al lottees violatr,:d the conditions of allotment/assignment and therefore, the resumption orders were issued. 27

21. As discussed supra, vide proceedings dated 15.04.1998, the RDO, Chevella, passed resumption orders directing the authorized MRO, Rajendra Nagar to take possession of the land to govemment custody. It was addressed to the individuals, making a copy to the MRO, Rajendra Nagar. But the name of the petitioners' father is not there. It was not marked to the father of the petitioner. They have not filed any documents to show that the notice and the said resumption proceedings dated 15.04.1998 were served on the petitioners' father. However, Sri G.Narsimha and 19 others filed writ petition vide W.P.No.86l2 of 2000 challenging the show cause notice dated 1 9. I I .1997 arrd the said resumption proceedings dated 15,04.1998. This Court allowed the said writ petition setting aside the said show cause notice and directed the petitioners therein to submit explanation within four (4) weeks to the said show cause notice and directed the respondents therein to consider the same and dispose of. Till such time, this Court directed the respondents therein not to evict the petitioners therein in the subject land which are in their possession. Thereafter, the RDO, Chevella passed resumption dated 15.11.2002. The said G.Narsimha and others 28 filed writ petition vide W.P.No.24l2O of 2002 challenging the said resumption proceedings. Vide order dated 30'04'2008, this Court allowed the said writ petition setting aside the proceedings dated

15.ll.2OO2 on imposition of costs on RDO, Chevel a'

22. 'lhe said facts would reveal that resumption proceedings were passed without putting father of the petitioners and other assignees on notice and affording them an opportunity' Now the respondents cannot contend that the petitioners' father did not challenge the resumption proceedings.

23. It is also further contended by the respondents that father of the petitioners and other assignees/allottees formed into an Association in the name of and style of 'A:undati Welfare Association (Regd.No.1889 of 2007), requested the respondent authorities to allot 800 sq.yards of developt d area to the allottees/assignees who have documents su:h as pattadar passbooks and title deeds and 200 sq.yards to the )ncroachers who are in possession of the property. They further ccrntended that the president of the said Association submitted affidrrvits stating that they would withdraw the Court cases if any, and itlso abide by the 29 said undertaking. They have also submitted list of beneficiarieVassignees/allottees. The name of the petitioners' father is also there. As per the said understanding, respondents have allotted 800 and 200 sq.yards and also executed two conveyance deeds in their favour. In proof of the same, respondents filed copies of three deeds of conveyance all dated

03.06.2023 and also places reliance on memo dated 26.04.2022 and proceedings dated 3 1.12.2022.

24.lt is the specific contention ofthe petitioners herein that neither the petitioners nor their father is aware of the said facts. They did not give any authorization to the President of the said Association. The signah-rre of the petitioners' father was forged. However, no conveyance deed was executed in favour of the petitioners' father. Even the 1't petitioner is in possession of 200 sq.yards other than the aforesaid subject property. Conveyance deed was not executed in favour of the 1't petitioner.

25. It is also relevant to note that the President of the said Association Sri Kurani Balraj, Sri K.Sadanandan @ K'S'Nandan (Ex-President) frled W.P.No.2907l of 2024 against the respondents -t 30 herein and M/s Prestige Projects Private Limitec to declare the action of respondent Nos.l to 7 in not conducl ing survey and Panchanama and demarcating 26 Acres of land in Survey Nos' 282, 283,284 as per proceedings No. LC11656812008 di ted 3111212022, further not demarcating the plots of land convelerl in favour' 66 Assignees and encroachers as per conveyance de:ds executed in their favour and handover the same to the assig rrees/allottees as illegal. They sought a consequential direction to hem to conduct survey, Panchanama and handover the respective plots of land to the assignees/al lottees as per their conveyance 'leeds or in the alternative declare that the action of the State ir conducting e- auction dated 10.08.2023 without demarca .ing the land admeasuring Ac 26.00 Gts, in Sy. Nos. 282, 2l\3 and 294 and handing over the same to the allottees as illegal. 'l'hey also sought to declare the documents executed in favour o 8tl' respondent therein i.e. NVs Prestige Project Private Limited ald others bearing document No. I 25 I 9/2023, | | 5 19 123, I 1 520 123, < ated 08'122023 and 01.11.2023 respectively as null and void. The'r also sought for consequential direction to respondent Nos.l to 7 therein to hand 31 over the respective extents of land to all the original assignees of the land as per their original assignment deeds. The said writ petition is pending

26.The aforesaid facts would reveal that respondents though claimed that the petitioners' father violated the allotment conditions and transferred the subject property to S.K. Developers, resumption proceedings were issued by following due procedure laid down under the Act, 1977 and Act, 1973, but they have not filed any documents in proof of the same. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 have to mandatorily follow the procedure laid down under law and if there is any violation of conditions of allotment/assignment by the father of the petitioners. They cannot pass resumption orders without fotlowing due procedure. They cannot rely upon the affidavits/undertakings given by the President and former President of the aforesaid Association. They have to specifically verifu with regard to consent, if any, given by the father of the petitioners to submit the said undertaking to the President and Ex-President of aforesaid Association and whether the father of the petitioners is a Member of the said Association or not )Z

27. Even according to the respondent Nos.ii to 6, the subject land admeasuring Ac.4.l9 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 situated at Budwel Village was assigned to father of the petitioners Therefore, necessarily they have to follow the procedure laid down under Act, 1977 and Act, 1973 if the father r,f the petitioners violates any conditions of allotment. It is the spt:cific case of the petitioners that their father never sold the subject property to S.K. Developers as alleged by respondents. Even then respondents did not file any proof to substantiate .their contr:ntions. Without considering the said aspects, respondent Nos.3 issrred the subject e- auction notice dated 02.08.2023 proposing auctior to be conducted on 10.08.2023.

28. It is also apt to note that this Court ride order dated

09.08.2023 directed 3'd respondent to proceed wi-h the auction to be held.on 10.08.2023, however, they are direrted to make an endorsement in sale of the allotment letter in lsspect of plots 14 and 15 stating that the said plots will be confi rmed subject to outcome of the writ petition. 33

29. It is also relevant to note that the successful bidders in respect of plot Nos.14 and 15 flled a writ petition vide W.P.No.26823 and 27310 of 2024 alleging that 3'd respondent did not inform hling of the said writ petition by the petitioners herein, interim order dated 09.08.2023 granted by this Court to them. Though the 3'd respondent in the tender notification dated

02.08.2023 stated that the subject property is unencumbered, there is no litigation. They have not informed the said fact to them. They have paid the entire amount in terms of the auction notice' Thereafter, they came to know about the pendency of the present writ petition and interim order granted by this Court. Therefore, they have hted the aforesaid two writ petitions to refund the amount paid by them along with the interest at the rate of 18% in respect ofplot Nos. l4 and 15.

30. Perusal of the proceedings dated 3l-12.2022 would reveal that vide order dated 30.04.2008 in W.P.No.24120 of 2002, this Court set aside the resumption proceedings dated l5-ll-2002 of RDO, Chevella Division. 34

31. Vide proceedings dated 18 12'2008, 6'h respondent/Tahsildar informed 4'h respondenVthe District Collector that 66 assignees and 82 encroachers are the larrd losers of the subject land, they have agreed as per package and accepted the plot compensation as lollows:- a. For Nos.66 assignees who are having paltadar passbooks an extent of 800 sq.yards in HUDA (HN'DA) developed lay out is to be allotted in lieu of land lost by them' b. For Nos.82 encroachers/cultivators who do not possess any title, an extent of 200 sq.yards be allotted in lieu of the land lost. c. 3'd respondent/Metropotitan Commissiorer, HMDA has submitted a report dated 04.08.2009 to tlre 1" respondent 'stating that 3'd respondent has taker over advance possession of the govemment land to an extent of 164'35 guntas in Sy.No.282 to 290 and 296 of Budwel village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal. He stated that as the lands are covered by Court litigations, it is decirled to negotiate with the assignees/allottees for compensation settlement' 35 The Committee of the District Collector, Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Estate Officer, HMDA was negotiated with the assignees for compensation settlement. d. 66 Assignees and 82 encroachers/cultivators have agreed for settlement for rehabilitation depending upon the planning regulations of HMDA on the assumption that the 60Yo of the land can be plotted. e. Vide memos dated 19.08.2011 and 16.04.2012, Govemment which forwarding a copy of representation filed by the Members of Arundhati Welfare Association (Land Losers) and requested to examine the plea made by the assignees for providing additional land to an extent of Ac.4.00 guntas, in addition to the land of Ac.22.05 guntas already handed over and furnish a detailed report through CCLA for taking further action in the matter. f. Vide letter dated 07.06.2014, he sent a detailed report to CCLA stating that as per the calculation with reference to HMDA norms for plot compensation with HMDA 36 developed layout, total extent for 66 assi3nees at the rate of 800 sq.yards and 82 encroachers at the rate of 200 sq.yards is arrived at Ac.26.05 guntas bttt only an extent of Ac.22.03 guntas has been compenszrted by both the departments i.e. HUDA and Tourism Department. Thus, there is shortfall of Ac.4.02 guntas. Thet efore, he sought CCLA to issue necessary orders wheth':r to reduce the extents of plot compensation to 7 O0sq.yards and 150sq.yards respectively along with alienable rights as against proposed extents of 800 and 200 :rq.yards and also issue orders with regard to additional lard to an extent of Ac.4.02 guntas. g. There is also reference to the communication of minutes of TSMLA dated 07. 1 1 .2006 by CCLA h. Ultimately, vide memo dated 26.04.2022, Govemment permitted the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District for utilization of the land for Ac.26.00 guntrrs in a corner of the subject land without disturbing the connectivity for the remaining land of Ac.255.00 guntas duly keeping in 37 view of the interests of Govemment, for making the said land of Ac.26.00 guntas into plots and to allot the same to the subject assignees and encroachers as compensation, subject to relinquishment of their rights over the land and withdrawal of court cases, if any. i. It is also further stated that the balance land to an extent ofAc. 255.00 guntas in subject land shall be reserved for future requirement of the Govemment and same allocated including IT and or others. j. President, Telangana raithu Sangham, Budwel Village has submitted representation dated 14.11.2022,

15.11.2022 to the Government stating that the Govemment has acquired the land to an extent of Ac.280.00 guntas and handed over to the HMDA and Tourism Department promising to allot plot compensation to 66 assignees at the rate of 800 sq. yards and to 82 encroachers at the rate of200 sq.yards per acre k. He has further requested to allot the land to an extent of Ac.26.00 guntas out of total extent of Ac.284.00 guntas 38 Sy.Nos.282 to 299 of Budwel village as per the govemment agreement for the land-lost D;rlith farmers of land victims. l. There is also reference to the survey conducted by Mandal Surveyor and location sketch sul'mitted by him' Referring to the same' in the proceedings dated 3 1.12.2022, 4'h respondent/District Colle ctor stated that as per the orders of the Government datec 26'04'2022,6'h respondent was directed to demarcate the land to an extent of Ac.26.00 in Sy.Nos. 282,283' 284 as per the sketch submitted by the Mandal Sun eyor, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and hand over possession of the same to HMDA for making the :ubject land into plots and allot the same to 66 Assignees i.t the rate of 800 sq.yards per Assignee, 82 encroachers a the rate of 200 sq.yards through lottery/draw and halrd over to the assignees/encroachers as compensation, subject to relinquishment of their rights over the land and withdrawal of Court Cases, if anY. 39

32. T\e aforesaid proceedings dated 31.12.2022 of 4h respondent lDistrict Collector and memo dated 26.04.2022 of Chief Secretary to Government are in violation of principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under POT Act,, 1977 and Act,

1973. In the list of patta holders mentioned in memo dated

26.04.2022, the name of the petitioners' father is not there. The petitioners' father was not put on notice and opportunity was not even afforded. Even, according to respondent Nos.2 to 6, l't petitioner is in possession of land in the aforesaid survey numbers of Budwel Village. Therefore, he is entitled to 200 sq.yards of land. The same was not assigned.

33. At the cost of repetition, as stated supra, the said Kurani Balraj, President, and Sri K.Sadanandun @ K.S.Nandan @x- President) of Association gave consent affidavits on 23.10.2010. The Said Kurani Balraj, President of Association has filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.2907l of 2024 against the respondents therein to declare the action of the Respondents in not conducting survey and Panchanama and demarcating Ac.26.00 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 282, 283,284, as per proceedings No.LC116568/ 40 2008 dated 3lll2l2o22 and further no, 6.621car ing the plots of land conveyed in favour of66 Assignees and 82 elrcroachers as per conveyance deeds executed in their favour and ha ndover the same to the assignees / allottees, as illegal and consequ,:ntly direct them to do so and for certain other reliefs.

34. In the light of the same, the entire actic'n of respondents in issuing auction notice dated 02.08.2023 condtrcting auction on

10.08.2023 is arbitrary and illegal and in violatron of procedure laid down under law.

35. K. Yadamma, filed W.P.No.23l79 of .1003 challenging the resumption proceedings dated 17.04.1998 passed by the RDO, Chevella, confirmed by the Joint Collector, dated 18.10.2003. Vide order darted 16.08.2013 this Court set aside the aforesaid resumption proceedings and granted liberty to the respondents therein to initiate fresh action. There is no reference with regard to following procedure laid down under law, in cor: rpliance with the said order.

36. It is also relevant to note that on the corrrplaint lodged by one KPV Subbaiah, Police CCS register':d a case ln 4l Cr.No. 19412022 making certain serious allegations against the accused therein. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 17 including Mr. Somesh Kumar, the then Chief Secretary, K.Chandrasekhar, Tahsildar of Rajendra Nagar Mandal at the relevantpoint of time. In the said charge sheet, it is stated that the then Chief Secretary issued memo dated 26.04.2022 without obtaining any sanction from the Govemment and without there being any approval of the Cabinet, impersonation is created and the nature of the land is changed. Thus, it is available for alienation. The same is to the benefit of the accused A. t to A.4 which is established in view ofthe conveyance deeds executed by A.17, Sri Somesh Kumar, the then Chief Secretary. The same is acquired in contradiction of law which resulted in large scale fraud and fabrication of the documents. Therefore, A.l7 Sri Somesh Kumar, being a public servant and responsible to safeguard public property and rights, caused wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to the accused therein. It is also further stated that a separate charge sheet will be filed against him as and vrhen sanction is granted by Govemment.

37. [t is also apt to note that Sri K. Yadaiah has executed an agreement of sale dated 21.04.2023 in favour of lt'4/s. A & U lnfra Park Private Limited. Later, the said K. Yadaiah has executed an agreement of sale-cum-GPA in respect of land rLdmeasuring 800 square yards in favour of IWs Vessella Greens. I he said firm has also purchased plots from various assignees and :ncroachers' M/s Vessella Greens filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.ll) of 2024 against the respondents therein to declare the inaction of the respondents with regard to physical demarcation of the plots and boundaries of the layout along with the roads by providing all necessary infrastructural facilities pursuant to the layout approved by the Director Planning, HMDA vide letter dated06.02-2023 in respect of Ac. 26.00 guntas in Sy.Nos. 282 283 a.rd 284 of Budvel village Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diritrict. Vide order dated 04.01.2024, this Court granted interim direction to respondents 2 to 5 therein to consider the reprr:sentation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2023, for survey and dernarcation of the 43 subject land, by issuing notice to petitioner and all other interested persons, in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said writ petition is also pending.

38. The aforesaid facts would reveal that respondents have not followed the due procedure laid down under law. Therefore, the impugned auction notice dated 10.08.2023 is liable to set aside.

39. Sri Peri Prabhakar, leamed counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Binapani Dei (supra) wherein it is held by the Apex Court that it is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would therefore arise from super-added. If there is power to deeide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case. 44

40. Leamed Advocate General places 'eliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Gurdip Singh Ubain and Yadaiah (supra) and the Division Bench iudgment of this Court in Yesaiah died by legal heirs (supra). Ihe facts of the cases therein are different to the facts ofthe presert cases.

41. tn the light of the aforesaid discussion this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents dic: not follow the procedure laid down under law while passing rt'sumption orders and also issuance of auction notice dated 02.08.1)23 proposing to conduct auction dated 10.08.2023 in respect of ;ubject property. Therefore, e-auction dated 10.08.2023 conducted :y 3'd respondent in respect of subject property i.e. the land admoasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 of Budwel Village is arbitrary and illegal. The same is liable to be set aside.

42. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. E-auction dated

10.08.2023 conducted by 3'd respondent in reipect of subject property of the land admeasuring Ac.4.l9 guntas ir Sy.No.288/4 of Budwel Village is set aside. Respondent No.4/Di;trict Collector is directed to consider the representation dated 07.1 submitted '-.2020 (t 45 by father of the petitioners and pass orders in accordance with law, by putting the petitioners on notice and affording them opportunity. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/- AHMED ABDUL ASS TANT R LAH KHAN EGISTRAR To, SECTION OFFICER a n d U rb a n De pa rtm e n t, ' s!:,.'J?,'|,',: BE,?h YJ,:f f"li f :{5;?xs :: : 2. Principal Secretarv. R Hyderabad. ' ' -evenue Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana, ' il,"tsfi,fl : ..l8:H'f,,l:T fl",.:fl ;jgff: f 4. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District At Kongara Kalan. 5. The Revenue Division: , * o ritv, R e p rese n ted b y i t s _.-..-rl Officer, Rajendranagar Division, Ranga Reddy District. uevelopment or,n"rnr]t!r?';

6. The Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 7. The Land Acquisition C t t to sRt- K MAHENDER REDDv pERr eRABHAKAR Advocate idlt?? l$:fr*j:rffion MCPL ADMN uRBAN DEV ,High court ror rhe state or Land Acquisition Unit, Hyderabad Metropotita n 1O.TWO CD COPIES 11 ONESPARECOPY GSA GJP b HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER WP.No.21467 of 2023 r,E STAr€ c a ti ltruNM s( > z a o ' il-rr rC\^ f ALLOWING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COST Gf',A 4 tl