The High Court · 2025

ORDER This Writ Petition was initiatly filed with the following prayer: "...issue a Writ, order or direction, one more partiatlarly in the nature of Wft of Mandamus lo issue a Wit of Mandamus or any other appropriate utit order or direction declaing the action of the respondents in assigning and. ctllotting the land belonging to the petitioners bearing surueg Nos.85O/aa, 851/a, 854, 855/a, 860/aa & 861/aa (corresponding to old SA.Nos.683/ 2, 683/ 3, d$/ 4 A 683/ 5) in total admeasuring Acres 33.00 guntas situated at Murlakapally Viltage, Nizamabad Mandal and Distict to uaious other persons as being illegal, orbitrary, unconstitutional and. consequentlg direct the respondents to cancel the said allotment/ assignment made in fauour of third parties in respect of the land belonging to the petitions and forthutith direct the respondents to restore and. handouer the phgsical possesslon of the lands beaing surueg numbers 850/aa, 851/a, 854, 8SS/a, 86o/aa & 861/ aa(corcesponding to old Sg.Nos.683/2, 683/3, 683/4 A 6ffi/ 5) in total admeasuring Acres 33.O0 guntas situated at Mudakapally Village, Niz,amobad Mandal & District and_ 2

2. During th e pendency of the writ petition, the aforesaid prayer in the r,r,.rit petition was amended a.s per the Court order dt.2O.O4.2O21 in IA.Nos.l &. 2 of 2O21, and thus, the prayer in the writ petition now reads as under: ". . .to issue an appropiate direction/ order/ u,trit, more partianlo.r o Writ of Mandamus (i) declaing lhe action of the respondents in assigning ond allotting the land belongirtg to the petitioners beaing 85O/ aa, 851/ a, 854, 855i a, 860/ aa & 861/aa, corcesponding to old Sy.Nos.683/2, 683/3, 683/4 6: 683/5, in total admeasuing Acres 33.OO guntas situated a1 Mudakdpally Village, Nizamabad Mon"dal and Distict, to uartous other persons as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstituttonal ond set aside the same; and (iil consequenllA direct ttrc respondent to forlhutith direct the initiation. o-f Right to Fair Compensation and Transparencg in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, proceeding bg owardittg just ottd J-air compensatiott to the petit,;oners or in the olterntttiue direct the respondents to allocate alternate equiuolent land to the petitioners of the same ualue: in all respects and pass such otlrcr order...."

3. Fleard le arned counsel lor the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing on behalf of respondents and perused the record. r 3

4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that in respect of land in Survey Nos.850/aa, 851 /a, 854, 855/a, 860/aa & 861 /aa (corresponding to old Sy.Nos.683/2, 683/3, 683/4 & 683/5) in total admeasuring Acres 99.00 guntas situated at Mudakapally Village, Nizamabacl Mandal and District, one S.R.parekh, R/o Selu Village, Parbhani District, Maharashtra State, was the pattadar and possessor; that the said S.R.parekh intending to alienate the entire extent of land, had approached the then Tahsildar, Nizamabad and sought permission for permanent alienation of the said extent of lands; that the Tahsildar ulde Proceedings No.3/399 1/ 1963, dt. 14.06.1963 had granted permission to a-lienate the said land in favour of l/ N.Ganga Reddy,S/o Chinna Reddy, fi/ Shyamsunder Reddy, S/o Ganga Reddy, and ini Smt Lachmi Bai W/o Gangi Reddy, all R/o Mudakpally Village; that pursuant to the aforesaid permission granted by the Tahsildar, the said S.R. parekh alienated the entire area of Acres 99.00 guntas in favour of the above mentioned three persons to an extent of Acres 33.0O guntas each by way of registered Sale Deed, dt.O2.12.1963, and put the said three persons rn possession \ 1 4 It is the further case of the petitioners that on the said three 5. persons purchasing the land of an extent of Acres 33'00 gttntas each, their llalrles were mutated in the revenue records and were in possession ald enjoyment of the said land' It is the further case of the petitioners that on couducting 6. resurvey of the lands by the Government authorities' the survey Nos. 683/2, 683 13, 683 14 & 683/5 have been assigned new survey Nos. 850/aa,85lla,854, 855/a, 860laa & 86 1/aa; that the lald possessed by N'Gangi Reddy, to an extent of Acres 33 00 guntas pursuant to the registered sale deed executed on 02.L2.1,963, was subjectecl to family partition' wherein petitionet' Nos.1 & 2, being the legal heirs ald successors of N Gangi Reddy' and petit.iolrer Nos.3 & 4, who are the sons of N'Narsimha Reddy' brother of lrl.Gangi Reddy, were allotted Acres 8.12 % guntas each in the a-forr:said surveY numbers' 7 . Petitioners further contend that as naxaiite movement was on peak ir. the subsequent years at Mudakapally Village and as the petitioner's lives were under constant threat from naxalites' the petit.iorrers left the village in order to save their' lives and were t t.1 V r!' 5 continuously on move to different places because of threat to their lives and a-lso in course of business and employment purposes, and as such, the petitioners could not come to their native village. B. It is the further case of the petitioners that since, they were constantly moving from place to place, they could not undertake agricultural operations and thus, their lands were kept fallow; that taking advaltage of their lands being kept fallow ald not being cultivated due to the absence of the petitioners from the village, the respondent Nos. I to 3 assuming the said land to be government assigned land in favour of the petitioners and not being put to use, have allotted pattas to various/ different persons by delivering possession of the subject land to the said allottees; that on coming to know of the respondents assigning and allotting their lands to different persons ald the said allottees being put in physical possession of the lalds, the petitioners approached the respondent Nos.3 & 4 and submitted a representation bringing to the notice of the said authorities that the land allotted by them to various individuals, in fact, is the patta lands of the petitioners and requested the respondents to immediately take necessary 1 6 steps to resume the Iand from the said ailottees b,u- cancelling the assignment/allo iment made in favour of the allottees.

9. Petitioners further contend that their request to cancel the assignment/allotment of their land made in favottr of others did not elicit any res;ponse from respondent Nos.3 &'1. the petitioners have approached the 2"d respondent and submitted a detailed report, dt. 18.10 2OO7 lo take necessarlr steps lo assume the land by cancelling thr-' assignment made in favour of the allottees'

10. Petitioners further contend that since, the subject land in respect of which assignment pattas are granted by the authorities, is their patta land and on account of the petitioners being away from their village due to extrernist violence, they cannot be deprived of theil property, merely because the same is kept lallow'

11. On behalf of the petitioners it is further contended that since, the resp,lndents claim to have allotted / assigned land in favour of variouLs persons, the respondents authorities are either to be directed to resume the land and hand it over to the petitioners o. ,r. ,.Orr.ed to acquire the said land in terms of the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in V '!r'r 7 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by paying compensation.

12. It is the further contention of the petitioners that merely on account of the petitioners not undertaking cultivation of the land and keeping the land as fallow would not confer any authority or jurisdiction on the respondents-authorities to treat the said land as government land and issuing pattas to various people of the said land.

13. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.4 is filed. By the counter aflidavit filed, while denying the writ averments it is contended that on verification of the office records i.e., Sethwar, after resurvey conducted by the authorities, the old survey Nos.683/2, 683/3,68314,68315, correspond to new survey Nos. 850/aa, 851/a, 854, 855/a, 860laa & 86 l/aa of Mudakpally Village; that in survey No.B50, an extent of Acres 41.30 guntas is classified as (PP), in survey No.851 an extent of Acres 2.25 guntas is classified as Mahasura, in survey No.B54, an extent of Acres

0.14 guntas is classified as patta land of one Sri Dharibji Pahrek, in survey No.855, an extent of Acres 19.07 guntas is classified as ',| 8 Mahasura, ald i. survey No.B61 iand to arr extent of Acres 53.35 is classified as rlherai; and that out of total extent of Acres r23.23 guntas, only ,A.cre 0.14 guntas is recorded as patta land.

14. The 4th respondent by the counter a_ffidavit further claimed that one N.Srinivas Reddy, S/o Ganga Reddy & three others approached this Court claiming that they are the pattaclars of lar-rd to an extent of Acres 33.00 guntas of Mudakpall, Shivar, which was purchased by their father from the original partadar, namelg S.R.Irarekh, who obtained necessary permission for alienation from the Tahsildar uid.e proceedings, dt. 14.06. 1993; and that the sairl lald having vested in their father,s name by rvay of a registerecl srale deed, and the petitioners moving awa1, from the village due to threat to their lives on account of naxalite movement, subsequent to their nzunes getting mutated in the revenue records in the year 1994, their names were not reflected in the revenue record from 1995 lo 2016; that on verification of the village recorcls from 1995 to 2014, it revealecl that land to an extent of Acres Ij3.35 guntas is classified as ,,pramboke,,, out of which an extent of Acres 4g.00 guntas was in possession of petitioners' fathe:-s and other members, each having Acres 14.04 7 b, 9 guntas, while the balance land admeasuring Acres 53.35 guntas is reflected as "Sarkari" land; that thereafter the said names continued from 2OO4-O5 to 2015-16 and the names of the petitioners were never entered in the revenue records; and that since, the tota-l extent of la,d is classified as ..lavuni patta,,, pattas were given in favour of tand less poor.

15. On behalf of the 4th respondent it is further contended that on verification of the above records i.e., Sethwar after resurvey, corresponding new survey numbers were entered in revenue records and no protest whatsoever has been received from the petitioners.

16. It is further contended by the 4th respondent that as per Khasra Pahani of the year 1964-65, the names of the petitioner,s father was mentioned only as enjoyer of the iand and not pattadar of the land. 17 . On behalf of the 4th respondent it is further contended that though the petitioners' father claim to have purchased the said land from one Mr. Patak, the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar i 1 10 for zLlienation does not mention the name of Mr.Patak but mentions the name of S.R.Parekh S/o R.S.Parekh.

18. On behall of the 4th responder-rt it is contended that the name recorded in the Sub Registrar is different lrom the name shown in the sale deed, dt.O2.12.1963, and as such, the petitioners at'e not entitled to be granted any relief in the present Writ Petition.

19. It is further contended on bchalf of the 4rr. respondent that the petitioners, except stating that on account of naxalite movement being in peak, they having left the village, no details as to r.t,hen they have left the village and when they have come back to the village, n,r details are mentioned for them to file the present Writ Petition, and thus, the delay in approaching the Court r,vould disentitie the pe.titioners for being granted any relief.

20. On behalf ol the 4th respondent, it is contended that as per the Sethwar, the land is shown as Sarkari ald that the petitioners've nclor's name is shown only to an extent of Acre 0.14 guntas, and as such the petitioners cannot lay any claim to the land in excess ol Ac.0.14 guntas. v I,\* 11

21. On behalf of the 4th respondent, it is a_lso contended that though the petitioners' predecessors-in-interest claimed to have purchased the subject land from one S.R.parekh S/o R.S.parekh, land to an extent of Acre 0.14 guntas in survey No.6g3 is only shown in the name of Dharibji pahrek as per AsaI Sethwar and no where the name of S.R.Parekh finds mentioned.

22. The 4th respondent by stating as above, has annexed a copy ol the Asai Sethwar, copy of the Khasra pahani for the years 1954-55, 1964-65, 1984-85 with translation copy thereof.

23. Petitioners have hled their rejoinder to the counter filed on behalf of the 4th respondent. By the rejoinder, the petitioners while denying the claim made by the respondents by their counter had contended that as per Khasra pal.ani of the year 19S4-S5, the petitioner's predecessor's name was recorded as original pattadar of the.property and thus, the claim of the respondents by their counter that the petitioners,s predecessors had only possessed land to an extent of Acre 0.14 guntas of patta land is false and baseless. 72

24. By the rejoinder, it is further contended that the petitioners have declared their lands under Agricultural Land Ceiling Act and the Tribunal b'', its order dt. 15.06 .1977 held the extent of land possessed b1' rhem to be non-surplus land in the hands of the petitioners' pre,lecessors and that the Government at no point of time claimed or contended that the said land is government land.

25. By the rejoinder affidavit it is further contended that the respondents-au thorities taking advantage of the petitioners' absence in the village on account of naxa-l movement, ir-rstead of protecting their lives and property, have illegally granted pattas in the said iand to various people by considering the said land to be government [and; and that on the petitioners approaching the respondents au thorities subsequent to the filing of the present Writ Petitron, the 4tt respondent herein by his communication, dt.3l.l2.2ol9, had categorically admitted that as per the pahani of the year l9e'4-65, the total extent of land purchased is Acres

99.00 guntas zrnd that the entries made in the pahanies are not inconsonance vrith the actual extent of survey numbers and that the assignmen I was also made for more than the extent of government lar-" d available in survey No.B61 and 86O, in rvhich Y ,b 13 there is no government land ald that the land to an extent of Acres 33.00 guntas of the petitioners is occupied by STs while the entries in the pahanies show that they are the pattadars of lald to an extent of Acres 33.00 guntas tiil today.

26. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

27. At the outset, it is to be noted that in normal circumstances when a claim is made to a lald as patta land, while the contesting party claims the said land to be their land, the Court in such circumstances would relegate the parties to resolve the disputes by approaching the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, wherein the respective claims are to be established by adducing documentar5r evidence, as such, exercise cannot be undertaken in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

28. However, in the facts of the piesent case, since, the petitioners claim of having purchased the land by their predecessors-in interest from one S.R.parekh represented by one Chinna Reddy, who was granted permission by the Tahsildar, way back in the year 1963 uide proceedings, dt. 14.06.1963, and pursuant to the said permission granted by the Tahsiidar for \ 14 permanent alienation of the 1and, a registered Sale Deed having been executed on O2. 12.1963 by the Power of Attorney Holder representing the said S.R.Parekh in favour of the petitioners' predecessors rnentioned therein, and a copy of the said proceeding bi:ing marked to the District Registrar, Nizamabad as well as Secunde:rabad, whereat the said S.R.Parekh is set to have been residing, and the said docun-rent not being called in question at any point of time, and in fact having been acted upon by the authorities by entering the name of the petitioners' predecessors- in-interest in the revenue records, and aiso thereaJter issuing pattadar pass book in the year 1994-95 in favour of the petitioners plrrs,uant to the family settlement, this Court is of the view that the dispute cannot considered as a title dispute, for this Court to relegate the petitioners to avail civil remedies.

29. Though tl-Le respondents by the documents annexed to their counter affidavit in the form of Asal Sethwar had claimed that the entire land in survey No.683 (old) with its sub-division being noted as "Sar:kari", it is to be noted that it is only respect of the land that is berng claimed by the petitioners, the said entry was made but in res,pect of the lands in various survey numbers it has ) v ," 15 been noted as "Sarkari" while in the next column, the name of Khatadar is shown.

30. The mentioning of "Sarkari" in column No.3 of Asa-l Sethwar, if seen with reference to the heading would show that the classihcation therein is with regard to government or inam land, for the purpose of collection of land revenue ald would not mean the land to be government land.

31. In this regard it may be noted that on abolition of the Jagirs Act, the lands have been converted from Sarkari to Diwani, thereby requiring to pay lald revenue/cess.

32. The respondents by their counter affidarrit and the documents annexed thereto, rely on the Khasra pahanies of the years 1954-55, 1964-65, 1984-85 to justify their claim of the name of the predecessors-in-interest haVing not been reflected, it is to be noted that since, the Khasra pahani of the year 1964-65 as filed along with the counter at page 59 at SI.No.1666 is in respect of land in survey No.683/ 1, to an extent of Acres 41.30 guntas, which is noted as "poramboke', wherein the names of the petitioners is shown as in enjoyment column. \ .\ ./ ^./ 16

33. It is also pertinent to note that though the respondents by the counter alfiCavit and placing reliance on the said extracts had claimed that the name of the petitioners' predecessors in interest namelA S.R.Parekh, not even shown in the revenue records, fi.rstlg, it is to be noted that it is pursuant to the permission, dt.14.06.1963, the petitioners' predecessors-in-interest had purchased the land under registered Sale Deed, dt.O2.12.1963, and secondly, i1 close perusal of the extracts as filed into this Court by the rr:spondents wouid show that the respondents did not file complete extract of the register, as annexed with the counter at page 59 shows entries at S1.No. 1662 to 1666, while the next page at 60 commences lvith entries from Sl.No.1673 to 1678, thereby (06) en':ries from 1667 to 1672 are withheld from being perused by this Court.

34. The afores,aid act on the part of the responclents, who is a public authority itself creates doubt as to the genuineness of the claim of the respondents-authorities of the narnes of the petitioners' pre.Cecessors-in-interest or that of vendor of the petitioners' prerlecessors-in-interest not being reflected in the V _-1. 17 revenue records to be a true and correct statement for being accepted.

35. Further, a perusal of the Kasara pahani of the year l9g4_g5 shows the names of the petitioners, predecessors-in_interest against new survey numbers, which have been assigned in place of old survey numbers on re-survey being conducted by the respondents-authorities.

36. The said entries in the Kasara pahani of the year 1gg4-g5 showing the name of the petitioners, predecessors-in-interest falsifies the claim of the respondents in the counter frled by them, of the petitioners' predecessors-in-interest . name not being reflected in the Kasara Pahani of the year 1964-65.

37. It is also pertinent to note that the names of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest a_re not only reflected in the revenue records but their holdings of the land having been declared as not being in excess of their entitlement as per the Land Ceiling Act by the Tribunal, goes to show that at no point of time, the respondents-authorities have disputed the claim of the petitioners over the subject land. 18 \

38. Further, ,rn family settlement taking place among the petitioners, antl the petitioners approaching the respondents- authorities seel..ing mutation, the respondents authorities having issued mutation proceedings dt.12.O4.1994, on the basis of which the petitioners also having been issued with pattadar pass book under the provrstons of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lar-rd and Pattadar Pass Eiooks Act, 197 l, the claim now being made by the respondents-authorities of the subject land to be government land, which is in occupation of weaker sections, cannot be accepted as tru,: and correct statement.

39. If only the claim as made by the respondents in their counter affida'r. it is true and correct reflection of the position as per the record, the 4*' respondent, u'ho had verified the contents of the counter affidavit filed on 04.06.2018, could not have addressed the letter, dt.3l.l2.2Ol8 to the 2"d respondent, stating that the said authority having inspected the spot on 27.12.2019 and found on tlee spot that the writ petitioners are not in physical possession of their lands to an extent of Acres 33.00 guntas, but is occupied by STs, though the entries of the pahanies show that they are pattaclars of the said extent of land as on the sard date. ,q 19

40. It is to be noted that since, the subject land being claimed by the petitioners is their patta land, mere absence of the petitioners from the viltage or not underta-king any agricultura.l activity therein and keeping the larrd fallow would not bv itself confer any right on the respondents-authorities to treat tr," ".ia land as government land for granting pattas in favour of landless poor.

41. If only the respondents_authorities intended to grant pattas to landless poor in the land which has been kept uncultivated or fallow by the petitioners herein, the respondents_authorities ought to have acquired the said land before granting pattas. 42 It is to be noted that since, the subject land is private patta land of the petitioners, the respondents_authorities could not have deprived the petitioners of the said property, except by authority of law as envisaged under Article 3ooA of the Constitution of India

43. Further, a perusal of the letter, dt.31.12.2OO9 addressed by the 4tr'respondent to the 2"a respondent as filed by the petitioners along with their rejoinder would go to show that the authorities \,1 .\a 20 I having granted pattas in respect of land in the subject survey numbers, wherein no government land exists, and the persons to whom the iancl of the petitioners is shou,n as the lar-rd allotted to them would not rrrake the allotment of pattas va1id, depriving the petitioners of their land.

44. Though on behalf of the respondents it is contended that the petitroners not having disclosed as to r.,"'hen they had moved out of their village on account of naxalite movement and also as to when having returned back to the village, for them to approach this Court otherr.r.is,: disentitles the petitioners from being granted any relief on account of delay, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that during the year 1994, on account of the various inciclents that were taking place due to naxalite movement, rvherein civilians were ki1led, the State Government had issued GOs providing for ernployment to the family members of the civilians kilied, which government orders were modified and continued till at least, 2013.

45. The said fact of the Government itself issuing GOs recognizing the fact of civilians being killed by the extremists goes

1../ -\ 21 to show that the claim of the petitioners of apprehension to their lives was the cause for them to move away from their village, cannot be brushed aside lightly.

46. Further, as noted herein above, irrespective of the fact that the petitioners remained in the village or moved out of the village, would not confer any right or authorit5r on the respondents to grant assignment pattas to others in respect of their patta land, either on account of absence of the petitioners from the village or the land not being cultivated. 47 . If only the respondents authorities intended to make use of the land of the petitioners available in the village, the authorities ought to have acquired the said land by following due process by initiating land acquisition proceedings before granting assignment pattas.

48. Thus, the claim of the respondents that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of any relief from this Court on account of delay in approaching this Court, in the considered view of this Court, does not merit consideration as the State cannot claim ^au\. possession over the property of the petitioners, as it is on 22 account of the respondents-authorities issuing assignment pattas other people have entered on to the land of petitioners. [see The State of Haryana v. Aminlal (since deceased) through L.Rs.1l

49. In view of the above, since, this Court finds that the subject land being clairned by the petitioners is their patta la,d and in respect of the said land of the petitioners, assignment pattas having been gremted by the respondents-authorities in favour of third parties, tl-ris Court is of the view that the respondents- auth orities are to be directed to examine the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation, by considering the letter, dt.3 L.12.?,OO9, addressed by the 4rh respondent to the 2.d respondent by' acquiring the said land in terms of the applicable provi sions of 1aw .

50. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is dispos;ed of. No order as to costs. t 202q tr.tSC gZS v E 23 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. -"SD/.S, MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII G- SECTION OFFICER Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

1. T.he Prl- Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Tank Bund, 2. The District Collector, Nizamabad District. 3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 4. The Tahsildar, Nizamabad Mandal, Nizamabad. 5. One CC to SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNMENT, High Court for the-State of Telangana, 7. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad. [OUT] To PSK LS -t I I i I I : HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 ORDER WP.No.27325 of 2007 1' | .. <'' j -- , ;.'i -:i,ii -::-- ..:".,_ $B rtl zffi DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS sf rcfu-