The High Court · 2025

Judgment

4. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department' Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Nagarkumool District, Nagarkumool. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkumool Division, Nagarkumool Dstrict The Tahsildar, Kollapur Mandal, Kollapur, Nagarkumool District. ...RESPONOENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 4h respondent Tahsildar in Lr. No. C.No.1319/20'17, dated 27-7-2017 in cancelling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner for the land to an extent of Ac. 1 -O0 in Sy.No.1 30 of Kollapur Town fr, Mandal, Nagarkurnool District which is in petitioners possession and enioyment without giving any opportunity to the petitioner whatsoerer in gross violation of the principles of natural iustice, as ilbgal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19,21 and 3oo-A of the constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. I.A. t{O: I OF Zr17(WPMP. NO: 35606 OF 20 171

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with petitione/s pea:eful possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac. 1.0O gts. in Sy.N().130 of Kollapur Town &, Mandal, Nagarkumool District by suspending the operation of the impugned cancellation order in Lr. No. C.No. 1 319/201 7, dated 27 -7 .2017 of the 4th respondent pending disposal of the above WP. IA NO: oF 20 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Nagarkumool District, Nagarkurrool. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool Division Nagarkumool District 4. The Tahsildar, Kollapur Mandal, Kollapur, Nagarkumoc,l District. AND ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS Smt. K. Balamma, Wo. K.Balaiah, 70 years, Marginirt farmer Ri/o. Kollapur Town and Mandal, Nagarkumool District. ...RESP()NDENT/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt:07.O9.2O17 passed in WP.MF).No.35606 of 2017 in WP.No.28635 ot 2017 and dismiss the writ petition. Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER SK, J THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.28635 OF 2OL7 ORDER: l. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned orders in Lr.C.No. 13lg/2107 dated

27.O7.2OL7, whercby the respondent No.4/Tahsildar, Kollapur cancglled the patta granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of lald admeasuring to an extent of Ac. I.OO guntas situat,cd in Sy.No.l3O, situated at Kollapur Town and Ma-ndal, Negarkurnool Distrjct (hereinaftcr referred to as 'subjcct land,) without giving any opportunit5r to the pctitioner and sought to set aside the same.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistalt Government pleader for Revenure and perused the record.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner: would submit that the pctitioner was assigned agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1.OO guntas -1 2 SK, J situated in Sy.No.13O, situated in Kollapu:: Village and Mandal in the year, 1991 and she was also issued Pattadar Pass Book and Form 1-B Register in her flavour and since then the petitioner anct her family members are eking out their livelihood b.4 cultivating the said land. The petitioner was also issued with D- Form patta. The respondent-authorities irformed the petitioner that the D-Form patta given to the petitioner was resumed on the ground the petitioner has not been cultivating the said land for the last three years and supplicd copy of impugned order in Lr.No.C/ l3l9 /2017 d,ated 2Z .OZ .2OtZ .

4. The lbarncd Counsel. for the petitioner would submit that though in the impugned order. it is stated that a notice was issued to the pe titioner on O4.O7.2017, no notice was served on the pe titioner and the impugned order is passed behind track of the petitioner. The conditions of patta state ttLat the land should be brought under cultivation withi n two years \ t 3 SK. J from the date of assignment, whereas in the irnpugned order it is stated that for the last three years the petitioner was not cultiva[ing t]re land which is not at all a ground to cancel the patta granted in favour of the petitioner and therefore the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 is wittrout any notice and the same is ex facie illegal and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.

5. On the other hand the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on thc counter hled by ttre respondent No.4 would submit that the petitioner was assigned with subject land by virtue of G.O.Ms.No. 1406, dated 26.07.1958 and as per the terms and conditions of the said G.O., the petitioner ought to have brought the said land into cultivation within three years from the date of assignment, but as ttre petitioner never cultivated tlle said land at any point of time, a notice was issued. to the petitioner vide Ref.No.C/ l3l9 /2OL7 dated O4.O7.2O17 , which was 4 SK, J served on thc daughter-in-law of the petitLoner namely K.Laxmi and as the petitioner failed to submit any reply within the mandatory period and the impugned order was passed resuming the subje ct land by conducting Panchanama dated Z1.OZ.i,Ol7. The subject land is resumed for ttre purpose of construction of Double Bed room houses and there are no merits and requested to disrn-iss the wri, petition.

6. After hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this Court is of the.considered view ttrat there is no dispute with regard to assignment of suit schedule land admeasuring to an exterLt of Ac. l.OO guntas in Sy.No.13O of Kollapur Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District to the petitioner. In the writ allidavit, the petitioner stated that D_Fornr patta was issued to her in the year 199 l, but the res:ondents in their counter stated that ttre subject land was assigned to the petitioner in the year, 1974 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No. 14O6, dated 26.0Z.lg1g. [n th<: impugned 5 SK, J order in Proc.No.C/ l3I9l2ol7 , dated 27 .O7 .2017 it is stated that the petitioner is not cultivating three years prior to passing of tl.e impugned order by violating the conditions of assignment patta. It is stated in the irnpugned order that basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Offrcer dated 23.O6.2017, a notice was issued to the petitioner on O4-O7.2017.

7. The main contention of the petitioner is that without issuing any notice to the petitioner with regard to the violation of conditions of assignment patta granted to the petitioner on the ground that she was not cultivating the said land. [n fact, without following any procedure tl.e respondent authorities wanted to resume the subject land for the purpose of construction of double bed room houses, without paying any land acquisition compensation to the petrtroner. 1 ) 6 SK, J

8. In para No.4 of the counter of the rer;pondents, it is stated that a rrotice was served on tlee F,etitioner on O4.O7.2O17 but the petitioner failed to file any reply within the mandatory period, the impugnr:d order was passed. Contrar5r to the said statement, in para No.5 of the sarne counter it is stated that the, notice was served to the daughter-in-law of the petitioner namely K.Laxmi, but tJle respondents failed to file any document along with the counter to show that the notice was served to tl-e petitioner or her rlaughter_in- law, but merely stated thc same in tt.eir counter afhdavit. Moreover, in the impugned orde r, nowhere mentioned that notice was served to the ytetitioner or her daughter-in-law, but just menl,ionerl as notice dated 04.O7.2OL7 . It clearty shows that the respondents without issrrring any proper notice, issued impugned proceedings. **_9. The respondents along with the counter filed panchanama dated 23.06.2012, conducted- by the 7 SK, J Mandal Revenue Inspector. As per the contents of the said panchanama, the revenue authorities have conducted panchanama in the presence of palchas, without calling the petitioner or other assignees, statements of panchas were recorded, wherein they stated ttrat out of 28 assignees, 17 assignees are not cultivating the tand including the petitioner. Without conducting panchanama in the presence of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 passed the impugned order merely basing on the panchanama dated

23.06.2017 and in view of the sarne, the said panchanama cannot be taken into account. The respondents have to follow. the procedure AS contemplated under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition and Transfer) Act, 1977 for resumption of the assigned lands.

10. The petitioner along with the writ petition, filed pattadar pass book issued by the respondents in the year, 1994 and also Form- 18 Register dated 8 SK, J

27.O5.2OL7, which clearly shows ttrat tlle petitioner.is in possession. of the subject and cultivating the same. Contrar5r to the same, the respondent a rthorities in the impugned order stating that ttre petitirtner has not been cultivating the 1and for Last thr.ee years. In the pancharrama dated 23.06.2012 it is stated that the petitioner and other assignees are not cultivating the land from the date of assignment. It is clearly shows the intention of the respondents for passing the impugned order is that the subject 1and is feasible for construction of double bed room houses. Without mentioning the same, the respondent No.4 has issued impugned orders on the ground that the 1>etitioner is not cultivating ttre tand for the past three years. The respondent No.4, without following the procedure, have resumed the subject land for the purpose of construction of double bed room houses. The respondents without pa).tng Land Acquisition compensation and without issuing any nc,tice to the petitioner, thc Mandal Reventre lnspector and the 9 SK, J Village Revenue Oflicer have conducted panchanama in ttre absence of petitioner and in view of the same, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 is arbitrary, illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 1 i. Further, in a similar issue, this Court in B-Adinaragana Murthg Vs., Collector, Ananthapur Districtr and another, held that even if power of resumption is available to the authorities, such power cannot be exercised beyond long lapse of time. The relevant paras of the said Judgment are extracted as under: '17. Though tLE Act No.9 of 1977, fue tegi.slature desired to help tLe landless poor persons bg assignment the Gouernment LDaste lands to them. This m.easure is intend.ed to achieuing the objectiue of ensuing social justie to all citizens of tle State. Such an objectiue could be achieued if the State administratiue machinery of tle State remain s in tts 'dreom world' and assume crrtain pouers uthich are not auailable to it, tle only suffers of such maladministratiue acts are the poorer sections of tLe society. Euen if the pouer of resumption is auailable to tLe | 1996 (6) ALD 322 (SBl 10 SK, J autLLorities, such a pouer cannot be exerci:;ed. afier a lapse of 34 years exe.rcised, authorities

18. On this ground. alone, I must saL,, tLe pouer of resumption of assignment lands cannc t be ertended beyond a reasonable pertod, in dny euent, not later than fi"ue to sk Aears. euen uithin fiue to sk :tears when tlrc pouter hns to be there must. be rr;essary ir*pection by the on the bo:;is of which a decision to resutne the lands be taken preceding a twtie to the parties conented". Section 4 (l) h) of the Act enuisages that euen if there i.s uiolation of ertain terms and conditions by the assignee the tand shall bet restored. to the assiqnee or his legol heris as th.e crtse mag be and. if there is a uiolation of the terms of asstgnment for the second, time, it utould be open to the authorities to resume tle lo.nds. I Lnue, tlnerefore, no hesitation to scrA tllat tle respondents haue no authoritg to resume lhe lands after Iong lapse of more than 34 Veats on some flim^sE ground.s The jirst quesLion is anstaered. accordingty". (Em phasis addedf 12. In the instant casc also, after lapse of more than 26 years, the respondent authoriLies, without following the procedure as corltemplated under law, issued impugned proceedinfJs of resuming the assignment land, In view of the same the impugned ()rder issued by the respondent No.4 is liable to be asset aside. \ 11 SK. J

13. With the above findings, the Writ Petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 in Lr.No.C.No.l3l9 l2OL7 dated 27.07.2017 in respect of land of the petitioner admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1.OO guntas Sy.No. 13O of Kollapur Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. [f the respondents wants to acquire the tand of ttre petitioner they have to follow the procedure AS contemplated under zught to Fair Compensation and Transparency in t^and Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2O13. No order as to costs.

14. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness 7 Witness THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, SUJOY PAUL Tuesdav' The First Day Of April Two Thousand And Twenty Five SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY OEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE C'OPYII SECTION ER To, 1 2 3 4 ry-'T The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad- The District Collector, Nagarkurnool District, Nagarkumool. The Revenue Divisional 6ffr'cer, Nagarkumool Division, Nagarkumool District The Tahsildar, Kollapur Mandal, Kollapur, Nagarkumool District. One CC to Sri K. Rdthanga Pani Reddy, Advocate tOPUgl Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI HIGH COURT DATED:OI10412025 (- og r,e Sr,1 re (i 01;ut zffi o t )"'4r",",t-' ORDER WP.No.28635 of 2O1t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS b \x