The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH Between:

1. chandanal",'lq llSgqlh (plgo gs.per LR p2), s/o Late Kotaiah, aged about 61 .years R/o H.No.1-a4grA, Kotbmaisammb aazar,-sr-rvrp"i Town and District. ._ Ramadevi,. wo. Laxmi Narayana, Aged 4s years, 2. sarag.andla occ.Housewife, R/o. Jangaon cross Road,' Holsing"-boaro c6idt: Suryapeta (Petitioner No.2 is brought on record as LRs of the deceased petitioner No.1 as per C.O.dt.18.06.2015 in tA No.2/2025.) AND ...PETITIONERS

1. State of Te secretariaijilfl,ilSil;e. bv Principat secretary, Reven ue Department, 2- The Joint collector,.suryap-et, suryapet district, Telangana state. 3. The Revenue Divisionai Officer, Sfuryapet, Suryapet o'iitricirerinqan, State _-rro*r=*r, 4- The Tahsitdar, suryapet, suryapet Distiict Telahiana state. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularty one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in passing order in Proc.No.B18024116 Dt.30-11-2016 as confirmed by the respondent No.2 and 3 in Revision case No F2l2o12l2o1l by order dated 31-03-201g and Appeat No.D2l341 12017 Dt.06-05-2017 respectively directing to resume the assigned agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1.00 in Survey No. 671 (6Z1t3S) of suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District from the petitioner on the alleged ground that there was no cultivation in violation of conditions of patta as the same is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction besides being violative of Article 14,21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the impugned order being null and void. * e I s' * t s a I IA NO:1 OF 2018 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners rand in an extent of Ac'01'00 in survey No. 671 (671135) of suryapet Mrage and Mandar, Suryapet District by suspending the proceedings of the respondent No.4 in proc. No' 8r8024h6 Dt30- 1'r-2016 as confirmed by the respondent No.2 and 3 in Revision case No F2r2012r2017 by order dated 31-03-201g and Appear No'2r341r2017 Dt.06-05-2017 respectivery pending crisposar of the above writ petition and pending disposal of the above writ petition. * $I 1A NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: 1$H.:]riiifi *Ufl,{fli!'"?f,i3iis's,:?1il:Rt?"?'isbepa.men,, iilS*"Jilf ,x"sn:,:Ijl3f :"?,g,?i:lgf ,6[[,#:1B8{}ias{xhs"n,st"t" AND .i?,ff [31"#3J:ff,f,S[y:..:B1?,[?,Si+]ffl *f B?;1i,:lyearsR/oHNo1- ...PET!T|oNERS ...RESPONDENT Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the rnterim orders granted in r.A.No.01 0r 201gin w.p. No.1g743 0t 2018, dt.14.06.2018 and dismiss the Writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRt pASHAM RAVINDRA REDDY Counset for the Respondents: AGp roC e3lGIiiElrr The Court made the following: ORDER e r I rS * * a * + * t ,r .1, * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH FIirm No.19743 oF 2018 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respond.ent No.4 in passing the ord'er in Proc.B/ 80241t6, dated 30.1L.2O16 as confirmed by the respond.ent Nos.3 and 2 in Appeal No.D2/3 4l /2OL7 , order dated 06.06.20|T and Revision Case No.F2 l2Ot2/2017, order dated 31.03.2018 respectively, resuming the assigned. land from the petitioner admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.0O guntas in Sy.No.67 | (671135) of Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District as arbitrary and illegal and requested to set aside the impugned orders.

2. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the sole petitioner died and his daughter is brought on record, who is petitioner No.2 herein. 2 sr(,J 3 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Govermnet Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner wquld submit that during the life time of the petitioner he was assigned land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1.OO guntas in Sy.No.67L (671/351 of Suryapet Village and Mandal, vide Patta No.Ba/262/1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'subject land'). The petitioner was also issued Pattadar Pass Book in the year 1994 vide title deed No. 17528 and 1(b) Adangal. While it being so, the petitioner received a notice on O4.LO.2OL6 as to why the land cannot be resumed in view of keeping the land fallow. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply on2O.ll.2OL6. However, the respondent No.4, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, only basing on ft" alleged report of the Mandal Girdawar, which was I i obtained behind and back of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 passed impugned order on 30. 11.2016 n 3 SK,J resuming the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal vide Appeal No.D2/34Il2OL7 on the file of respondent No.3 and the said appeal was dismissed on O6.O6.2OL7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision before the respondent No.2 vide Revision Case No.F2/2OL2l2OLT and tJle said revision was also dismissed on 31.03.2018. In view of view of the s€une, the present writ petition'is filed.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner cultivated the subject land for the last 45 years, as such the land cannot be resumed on the vague allegation that the land kept fallow. The impugned orders were passed without considering the procedure of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, L977 (for short 'the Act, 19771, which is a social welfare legislation. 6 The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of writ petition, the sole petitioner died and his wife died on O6.IO.2OL9 as such Ir 4 sr(J the petitioner No.2, who is the sole daughter, alone is legal representative of the deceased-petitioner. Almost 13 to 15 persons, whose assigned lands in Sy.No.671 of Suryapet Revenue Village were resumed, filed writ petitions questioning the resumption orders and obtained interim stay orders.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the pahanies for the years lgg7-g8 to 2O13- 14, to which the respondents are referring, cannot be taken into consideration, since the assignment was done in the year L975, much prior to the said date as such the condition of within three years from the date of assigning the land cannot be said as violated by the petitioner. The initiation of impugned action is purely with a view to avoid paJrment of compensation by acquiring the land and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 8 The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment basing on the counter filed by the n 5 SK,J respondents would submit that the subject land was allotted to the petitioner, with a condition that the assignee or his legal heirs shall brought the same into cultivation within three (3) years from the date of assignment, but there is no evidence to show tl:at the land was cultivated by the petitioner and the Adangal /Pahani clearly reflecting in Columns No,16-21 as "Padava (Fallow). It is further stated that during the y€tr, 2OL6, the District Reorganization was taken up by the Telangana Government and during the process of identification of availability of the Government lands for construction of offices in the newly formed Suryapet District it was found that there is no Government vacant land and major portion of the lands assigned is kept unutilized and uncultivated by the assignees or their legal heirs. In view of the same, notices were issued under the Act, L977 and the petitioner failed to show the evidence that he has been cultivating the land in terms of conditions of the Assigned lands and in view of the sarne, the subject land was resumed. In the course of action the I I I ! r' 6 SK,J land in sy.No.6z1 to an extent of Ac.g5.13 guntas was resumed duly folrowing the procedure under the Act for the purpose of construction of pubric offices. The appeal and tJ,e revision fired by the petitioner were rightly dismissed as he failed to raise any new grounds. The petitioner has not cultivated the subject land right from the date of assignment tifi date and thereby the petitioner violated the conditions laid down in patta certificate in terms of G.o.Ms.No. L4o6, dated 2s.or.19sg. An extent of Ac.85.13 guntas was resumed and out of the said extent an extent of Ac.2o-oo guntas was ailocated for construction of office of the superintendent of porice, Suryapet District and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9 ' After hearing both sides and on pursuing the records, t],is court is of the considered view that there is no dispute with regard to the assignment of subject land to the petitioner by the respondent authorities in the year, 1975 vide patta certificate No.B4/262/tgzs. It is the {1 7 sK,J contention of the petitioner that ever since the date of assignment he had been cultivating the land. While it being, the respondent authorities have issued notice to the petitioner on O4.LO.2O16 as to why the subject land cannot be resumed for keeping the land fallow. For which the petitioner submitted his reply on 20.LL.20L6, however, the respondent No.4 without considering the e>rplanation submitted by the petitioner, only basing on the report of Mandal Girdawar, resumed tlle land on

30.1L.2OL6. The petitioner aggrieved by the resumption orders, filed appeal vide Appeal No.D2/34L/2O17 and the said appeal was dismissed by the respondent No.3 on

06.06.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Revision vide Revision Case No.F2/2O12/2OI7 and the said revision was also dismissed on 31.03.2018 by the respondent No.2.

10. On perusal of the impugned resumption proceedings vide Ref.No.B /8024116, dated 30. lL.2O16 it was issued by the respondent No.4/Tahsildar, on the sole ground that the petitioner failed to bring the land into cultivation a{ .? I sr(,J r-, within three years from the date of assignment. In the counter the respondents have contended that the land was resumed from the petitioner for constrr.rction of District Oflices in newly formed Suryapet District as the petitioner had kept the subject land falIow. But in the impugned order No.B/8O24 I2OLS dated 30. 1 | .2016 it was not specificatrly mentioned that the subj'ect land was resumed for the public purpose, which clearly shows that the respondents have taken contra stand in their counter The respondents want to acquire the land from the petitioner without paying compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. 1 1. The Assignees of the Government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, tJrough such resumption is for a public purpose as held by larger Bench of this Court in : z I ! t i i I I , t { ! I i I i I I i ! : t { i ! 3 : i ; I I I I I I Et I I , , I i , I I \ Land 9 SK,J Dltislono.l , :' Otlicer us. *Ielcala Pandut and the facts of the said Judgment squarely apply to the instant case and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: "777. In tle ciranmstances, we hold that tle assignees of tlo gouernment land.s are entitled to pagment of @mpensation equiualent to the full market ualue of tlw land and otler beneftts on par with fult owners of tlrc la.nd. euen in cases ulrcre tle assigned lands are talcenpossession o.f by t?e State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, tlrortgh such resumption is for a public purpose. We further hald that euen in cases where tlrc State does not inuolce the coueiant of tlrc grant or patta to resume the tand. for such pubtic purpose and resorts to acquisifion of the land under tlw proufsions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the ossignees shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits under the prouisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No condition inarporated in patta/ deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of tlrc assignee to claimfull compensation as owner of tte land." (Emphasis added) L2. F\rrttrer, the power of resumption of assigned lands cannot be extended beyond a reasonable period, in t zoo4 (2) ALT546 t- 10 SK,.T any event, not later than five to six years. Even within five to six years when the power has to be exercised, there must be necessary inspection by the authorities on the basis of which a decision to resume the lands be taken preceding a notice to the parties concerned as held by this court in B.Adinaragana Mutthg o. collr,ctofl and the relevant portion of t]le said Judgment is as follows: "78. On this ground alone, I must say, the pouer of resumption of assigned land.s cannot be extend.ed beyond a reasonable period, in ang euent, not later than fiue fo six Aears. Euen uithinfiue to srx Aears uhen the power has to be exercised, there must be neessary inspection by the authorities on the basis of uthich a decision to resume the lands be taken preedilq a notie to the parties concerrted. Section 4(1)(b) of the Act enuisages that euen if there is uiolation of ertain terms and anditions by the assignee the tand stwlt be restored to the assignee or his regar heirs as the case may be and if there is a uiolation of the terms of assignment for the seand. time, it utould. be open to the authorities to resume the lands. I ltaue, therefore, no hesitation to sag that tle resportd.ents haue no authoity to resume the lands after long lapse of more than 34 Aears on some flimsy grounds. Tle ftrst question is answered accordinglg." 2 tg99 (6) ALT 322 (sB) 11 SK,J

13. Furtlrer, this Court in Jinka Chendragudu t). Joint Collcctor€ power to cancel D-Form Patta or resume the land bry the Revenue authorities must be exercised within a reasonable time. The relevant potion of the said Judgment is extracted as under o77. Be tlwt as it may, the petitioner claims thnt the land in Etestion utas assigned to him in th.e gear 7976, and if agarding to respondent No.3, tLE land, as per th.e anditiott"s of D-Form patta, u)as required to bring the land under anltiuation uithin three Aears from the date of its issl"tane, and if the petitioner failed to bing the land under aitiuation, within three gears from the date of its issuance, then resportdent /Vo.3, ought to haue issued. notice callirry upon him to shau cause as to whA tle D-Form patta slwuld not be cancelled, immediately after expiry of three gears from the date of issuance of the D-Form patta, and instead of doing tha| he has issued the slaut cquse notie on 17.02.2005 i.e., after lapse of nearlg 30 gears. He furt?er submitted that since respondent No.3 issued the slww cause notice after lapse of nearly 30 Aears, it uttll not be possible to ascertain as to whether tLe lard. utas brought under cultiuation within three Aears from tle date of bsuance of D-Form patta or ruot. 12. This Court in Sekhari Aruna Kumari u. Dist. Collector, Vt sakhnpatnam and Madamaneni Chinnaswamg (died) per LRs. u. Joint Collector, Chittoor, held that power to canel tlrc D-Form patta or resume tle land, by the j zott (5) ALT 119 - r 12 SK,J reuerlue authoities must be exercbed within a reasonable time and that if D-Form patta was to be canelled, the grounds on which tt is sought to be canelled haue to stated, to enable the o,ssignee to slwut cause. In the instant case, the D-Form patta utas carl@lted after lapse of 3O years, and the shou.t cause noti.e issl.ted in thnt regard, did not spectfy the ground on which the DKT was to be cancelled, and in fact, it is uery e)ear from th.e proreedings as uell as the reord produed, the shou cause notice, which led to passing of caneltation of D-Form patta granted in fauour of the petitioner, is at th.e instance of respondenf ,lVos. 4 and 5. Merelg bemuse respondent Nos. 4 and 5 haue been in possession of the land. in question since seueral Aears, it as ngt open for tlem to seek cancellation of patta granted to som.e other person and seek assignment of the same in their fan)ottr.' (Erraphasis added) L4. [n the instant case the subject land assigned land to the petitioner in the yetr, 1975. The respondents have issued the present impugned resumption orders on

30. 1I.2016 on the ground of violation of assignment conditions, after 45 years. The findings of the above Judgments squarely apply to the facts of the instant case as this Court categorically held that after lapse of several a 13 s1(,J years, the respondents have no authority to resume the lands on flimsy grounds.

15. In the instant case, the respondents resumed the land and allotted to the Office of the Superintendnet of Oplice, Suryapet and constructed the buildings in some portion of the acquired land. In view of the sarne, the respondents have to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and pay the compensation to the petitioner No.2, as held by the larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisltlon Officer-Cum-Reuettue Diuisional Offtcer a. Meka.la. Pqndu (Supra-7). \

16. In view of the above findings, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside ttre irnpugned order passed by the No.4 in proceedings 1n No.B/80241 16 dated

30.1I.2OL6 and also the consequential orders passed by the respondent No.3 and 2 in Appeal No.D2 l34Ll2ol7 dated O6.O5.2OLT and Revision Case No.F2 /2Ol2l2ol7 dated 31.03.2018 respectively and the respondents are directed to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings by 4 I \ \ 1 {i I I I I \ 14 SK,J following the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for payment of compensation to the petitioner No.2 and complete the s€une within four (4) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed ,/TRUE COPYII SD/-A. JAYASREE ISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER f f / tE * * # f * f. To 1

2. 3. 4 5 6.

7. PSK. BS ll*4 ( ; HrcH couRT DATED:2310il2025 \ ORDER WP.No.19T4l of 201g lri.L* r;a ,.. . ,. '+r HET s 1 7 JAil 2020 * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS f * f + **. * i + * f :h # + * + # * * 1} # 10