gffI?jl?fu v. slate of relangana

in Proc.No. Bl8O24l16 Dt.1S-12-2016 as confirmed by the r,: Revision Case No. F21190312017 by order dated 25- I No.D2l125l2O17 Dt.06-05-20'1 7 respectively pending dispc,r ;pondent No.2 and 3 -20'1 7 and Appeal al of the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Between:

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, : rvenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Joint collector, Suryapet, suryapet district Telangar i lltate_ 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, suryapet Dis r ct Telangana State 4. The Tahsildar, Suryapet, suryapet District Telangana Sl. o ...PETITIONI RS/RESPONDENTS AND 1 2 3 Chevula Chandrakala (Died as per LRs PP2,3), W/o ) h.Venkatana rasaiah @ Rama Narsu, aged about 55 years, resident of Antl erdkar Nagar colony, Suryapet Town Suryapet District, Telangana state Kalukuri Triveni, W/o. Srinu, Aged 33 years, Occ. Hous:,rvife, Fl/o. H.No.2-7- 97/2, Ambedkar Colony, Suryapeta Town and District. Chevula Narender, S/o Rama Narsaiah Aged 43 yeit s, Occ. Coolie, R/o. H.No. 2-7-8'1l5/'l , Ambedkar Colony, Suryapet Town ani District. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are brought on record as l_ ls of the deceased Petitioner No.1 as per C.O.dt.06.08.2025 in lA No.1/2C 15. ...RESPONt) :NTS/PETITIONERS 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 interim orders d.' 26-12-2017 passed in w.p-rv p No. 5478.1 0f 2017 in w.P. No. 44187 of 2017 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI pASHAM RAVINDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: :IL[glD. HABEEBUDDTN, The Court made the following: ORDER AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ]I.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.44 L87 of i',QL7 : ORDER: This rvrit pctilion is fiied questioni the respondent No.4 in passing j Proc.B /8024/ 16, dated I 9. 12.2016 as r:o rg the action of hrc order in .rfirmed b.y the rcsponclent Nos.3 and 2 in Appeal No n2l12sl2o17, clated 06.05.2017 and Revision Casr: No l dated 25. 1l.2O17 respectively, clirecting '.21 1eo3 l20 t7 , .rt rcsumc the assigned agricultural land of the petitione to an extent of Ac.l.0O guntas in Sy.\r situated at Suryapet Village and Mar r adrneasu ring .67 r (671 /s2) cla1, Suryapct I)istrict as :rrbitrary and illegal and requr:..;. ed to set aside thc: impugncd ordcrs. 2 I{c:rrd Sri Pasham Ravindra Il :ddy, learnecl counsel lor the petitioner and Mr, Mohrr. Habeebucrdin. Icarned Assistant (iovernmcnt pleader Assignment appearing [r;r the respondcnts and perus,:1 the material on record. (1 2 Sii,.I W. P. No.44187 oI 2Ol7 3 Learned Counsel for the petitioiler submits that the Covernmcnt has assignect thc land admeastLring to an extent of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.671 situated at Surlapct 1n lavour of the paternal grandlather of petitioner namclv late Chitamalia Venkataiah (a) Venkaiah, u,ho has onc son b5r name Papaiah and daughter Por-rlamma. After his demise, the petitioner bcing the daughter of Papaial-r and said Poolamma had succeedeci Ac.l-OO each and thev havc bcen cultivating the iand k-ry raising crops like padd-v, rced grarl and jowar etc. The respondents have issued patta certihcate lIo.G/ 1582/2OO1 ciated .06.200 I in lavour of the petitioner, her name v,ra s mutateci in thc revenue records, pattadar passbooks .arrd title deeds -*'e rc also issued in her lavour and sincc then. she is in possession and enjoyment of the said iand by cuitivating the same. While it beir-ig so, after a iapse of 41 vears of assignment, the respondent No.4-Tatrsildar issued Form II notice dated 31.10.2016 stating thai the petitioner r,vas fo und to be the trar-rsferee of the assigned lands in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of 3 SK,.,I ,r .'].No.44187 of 20 17 Section 3 of the Telangana Assigned Lands lProhibition of Transfers) AcL,l977 and kept, the larr, I fallou,. The petitioner gave reply on 25.11.2016 a.l rng with the rclevant documents. The respondent I'io.4 without considering the said documents has passe: the impugned order in Proc.No.B/8O24 I 16 dated 1 ).72.2016 for rcsumption of the erssigned agricultural lan I admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts in Sy.No.671 (6i ) 152) situated at Suryapet Villagc and Mandal, Suryap<: District lrom thc petitioner on tl-Lc ground that thc pet r i,tner kept the land fallou' 1n liolation of the conc.r -ions as per G O.Ms.No.1406 d:r1-ed 25.O7.1958. Quesri >ning the said order, thc petition<:r filcd appcal bcforc t te rcspondcnt No.3 Revenue Divisional Ofhcer and tl r: same was dismissed Appeal Nrr I)2/ 72512017 dated 06.05.20I 7. against which the 1 ertitioner filed revision and the same was also dismisst rl in Revision Case No.F2l l9O3l2Ol7 dated 25.It.2017 \ + S K,J W.P.No.44187 ol 2(J 17

4. Learned- Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner cultivated the subject larci for the last i9 years, as such the land cannot be re sumed on the vague allegation that tire lald kept falion,. The irnpugned orders wcre passed without considering the proccdure of the A.p.Assigned Lands (prohibition of 'l'ransfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act, 19771, which is a socia I wella re Iegislarion. 5 . Learned Co unsel for thc petitioner lurrthcr submits tlrat the pahanies for thc years 7992-9g to 2013_ 14, to which the respondents are referring, cauncli bc taken into consideralion since the assignrnent was clonc ir-i the year 1975, much prior to the said date as such the conclition of within three )/ears liom the datc of assignment ol tlrc land cannot be said as violated by the petitioner. The initiation of impugned action is purely with a view to avoid payment o[ compensation by acquiring the lanC an<l requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugnerl orders. / J o SK,J \/ F. No.44187 of 2017

6. The learned Assistant Governmer t Pleader for Assignment basing on the counter i..ed by the respondents woulcl submit that the strlt r:ct land was originally assigned to the pr:1i_roner vide Proc.No.G/ 1582/2OO1 dated .06.2OO I under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1406 Dt.25.O7.1 ()i8 subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The (i,r ,:rnment has identified that the assigned land was not brought into cultivation by the assignee or any of the ftr ni11. members since the date of assignment which is L L violation of conditions and as per the entries made in tl <: pahanies of Suryapet Village from 20Oi to till date, thr subject land was recorded as 'Padava'i.e., left fallow, arrrl in view of the same, notice was issued to the pet tioner. After considering the explanation of the petitro rer and after thorough enquiry, the respondent No.4 has passed resumption order on the ground that the 5;lrlect land was never cultivated since the date of assignrrrr: rt ald as per the said order, the subject land was taken cr e.r possession ., by the respondent No.4 under a cover o panchanama i :i : t :: t t ; , , i i 6 SK.J W.P.No.44187 of 2017 dared 2 t.i2.2016 br,' evicting the peti[ioner. Subsequently, the said order of rcsrrmption was also confirmcd by the respondent No.3 in Appeal No.D2/I25/2017 dated 06.05.2O17 and the resporident No.2 in revision vidr: No.F2/1903 117 dated 25.11.2017 FIe further submits that the entries made in the pahar-ri of Suryapet Village from thc lear, 1975 to til1 daLe s1-tows tiiat the subject land was kept faiiow since the ciate of assignmcnt and ncr''cr brought into cultivation. He lurthcr submits that the assignment patta rvas canceiled and the iand was resumed on behalf of the Govei-nment ar-rd therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief ai'rd rcquested to clismiss the writ petition. 7 . After hearing both sides and on pursuing the rricords, this Court is ol the considcre:d view that there is no dispute with regarci to the assi54nment of subject land to the assignee by the respondent authorities in the year I975. It is the contcntion of the petiiioner that ever since the date ol assiqnrnent, her grandfather as well as t l SK,.J I . P.No.44I87 of 20 17 petitioner uras cultivating the land. WtLil: it being, the responden t authorities have issuecl notice ' r thr: pctitioncr on 31.10.2016 as to why the subject lend cannot be resumed for keeping the land fallow. I 'rtr which the petitioner submitted her reply, however, t te respondent No.4 without considering the explanatiori submitted by the petitioner, only basing on the rep< r t of Mandal Girdawar, resumed the land on Ig.),..2O16. The petitioner aggrieved by the resumpLion orcl: .r;, liied appcal vide Appeal No.D2/ 125/2017 and 1,1r r srame was dismissed by thc respondent No.3 ()r 06.05.20I 7 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filer l Revision vide Revision Case No.F2 /lgo3 l2Ol7 and ther r erme was also dismissed on 25.ll.2OlT by the respondenL l,lo.2

8. C)n perusal o[ the impugned resumpli( n proceedings vide Ref.No.BlBO24 lt6, dated 19 12.2016 i,ssuecl by the respondent No.4 Tahsildar, the solc grourc[ is that ttre petitioner lailed to bring the land into c,l1 .uation u,ithin \,t(rree years lrom the date of assignment Whereas in Form-II notice clated 31.10.2016, it was s;.atecl that the \ 8 SK,J W.P.No.a4187 of 20 17 petitioner was found to be the transferee of the assigned lands and in the counter, it u,as stated that the assigned Iand was not brought under cultivation ,*,ithin three -y<:ars in violation of the cor-iditions as per G.O.N{s.No.1406 clated 25.07.1958. It clearly shows that the respondents have taken contra stand in their counter. The respondents want to acquire thc land from the petitioner without paying compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. (). Thc Assignees cl the Governmcnt lands ar-e entitled to paymcnt of compcnsation equivalcr-rt to the full mzrrket valuc of thc lald arrd ottrer bcncfits on par with fuil owners of thc land even in cases where the assigned iands arc taken possessiorr ol bv the Statc in accordance rvittr thc terms of grant oir patta, thougl-r such resumption is lor a irublic purposc as tr<:ld by larger llencl-r of this Court in Land. Acquisition OfJicer-Cum-Reuenue Divisional OfJicer us. Mekala Pandul and the facts of the said 1 2oo4 (7,) ALT 546 9 SK,.I W I I'1o.44187 of 2017 .luclgment squarely apply to the instant r aLse and the rel e\/ant portion of the said .Iudgment is as 1c L..ou,s: " 1 I 1. In the circumsLances, we hold that i the (JoueftLmettt lands are entitled I cornpensation equiualent to the full matk<'l and other bene.flts on por tttith full owners in cases u-there the assigned londs are tor; bll the State in cLccordonce uith lhe terms t though such resumption is for a public pur hold that euen in cases tuhere the State c1.' couenant of the glrant or patta to resume t public purpose and resorls to accluisitior, :' the prouisions of the Land Acclutsitiot assiqnees shalt bt' enlitled lo compens't'i the land and for all other consequentiaL it' prouisions of the Land Acquisition Ac| 1l incorporated in patta/ deed of assiqnmenr a clog puttinq any restiction on the righl r ctaim full compensation os ou)ner of the k, r 0r rc crssi.qnees of ) poLltnetTt of olue of lhe lctnd t.f th<z land euen lL possession o,[ t grant or patto, ttse. We .furlher :; not inuoke the t'., land for sttch ' the land under ,\ct, 1894, the )tL as ou)ners of rteftts under the )4. No condition s hall operate as I Lhe assiqnee to cl,. " nphasis added)

10. Further, the power of resumptir'r , o[ assigned 1a.nds cannot be extended beyond reason.ir ) e period, 1n any event, not later than five to six 1'sa15 Il ':n within five to six years when the power has to be e : r:rcised, there \ must be necessary inspection by the ault orities on the basis of which a decision to resume the I Lnds be taken 10 SI{,J W.P. No.44 t87 of 2017 preceding a notice to the parties concerned as held by this Court in B.Adinaragand lWurthg u. Collector2 and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as lollows " 1 B. On this ground alone, I must sau, the pouter oJ' resumption o1 assigned lands cann ot be extendecj begonrl a reasonctble period, in aru1 euen(, not later thart Jiue to six years. Duen utithin fiue to six gecrs tuhen the pou.ter has to be exercised, there must be necessary inspect.ion bg the autlrcities on the basis of tu hich a decision to resurne the londs be taken preceding ct nolice to the patlies corrcemed.. Sectiott <(l)(b) of the Act e_nuisctEes that eueru if there is uiolation of ceftain terms and cot.,-clitions bg the assignee the land shall be, restored to the ctssignee or his leqal heirs as the case nrug be ancl tf there is <t uiolo_tion of the term-s of assignment for the seconcl tinte, it ti,tould be open to tlte authorities to resume the land.s. I hctue, tlrcrefore, no hesitation to scll1 that the responderts haue no autltoritl1 to resunle tLe lands after lonct lapse o.f more tlrun !14 aeors otl sotne flimsg grouncls. 'tLte Jirst question is ansuLered- accordinglg."

11. Further, this Court in Jinka Chendragadu u. Joint Collector3 poncr to cancel D-Form patta or resurne the land bl, the Revenue authorities must be exerciscd '? reos 1o; ALr 322 (sB) r 2011 (s) ALT 119 11 sK"-i \v l' No .14187 of 2017 u,ithin a reasonable time. The relevant p,tt c,n of the said .-luctgment is extracted as under " I l. Be tlutt as tt ma11, the petittotti. lan.d iru question utas asslgned to him in t t if accordinq to respondent No.3, the 't conditions of D-Fonn patta, LDas requirect under cultiuation within three qears fro,t issuance, and if the petttioner fotled to brtr cultiuation, tuithin three years from the C t.L, then respondent No.3, ought to haue issL. upon him to show cause as D Fonn patta should not be cancelled, i erptry of Lhree years from the date c,J D-|.-ornt patta, ond instead of doing that. L shotts couse notice on 17.02.2005 i.e., a_ft.e 3O gears. I Ie further submittecL that sirtce issued the shou-t cause notice after kt1; gears, it toill not be posstble to ascertain. c land tuas brought under cultiuation tuithb., the date of issuance of D Form patta or nat 1 2. Col\ector, Visakhapatnam and Madamanu,, (died) per LRs. u. Joint ColLector, Chittoctr. to cancel the D-Fonn patta or resume t reuenue authorities must be exercised utt., time and that if D-Form patta was to L) grounds on uhich it is sought to be c:c stoted, to enable the osstgnee to shtn.t instont case, the D-Fonn patto was cancel., 3O years, and the shotu cause notice iss,:t= This Court in Sekhc-i Antna clairrts tLrctt the : qea.r 1 976. and rtd, as per the o brtngl tLLe land the date of its g the larul undei z of its issuance, =d notice t:alLlnq t.o tultt-1 the tmecliately after s,suance of the = has issued the ' lctpse of nearlll rzsponcLertt No.3 ;e of nectrLg 3O s to ttthetlrcr the 'nree yecLrs from (umari u Drst. t Chlnn.aswamg Itelcl thrLt pouer uz land, by the tn a rectsonable t cancelled, the tcelled hctue to cause. ln the ,C after lapse of I in that regard., \- SK,J W. P. No.44187 of 20t7 did not spectfA the ground on uhich the DKT LUas to be cancelled, an(j in foct, it is uerg clcar J|otn the proceedtngs as Luell o-s the record protlucetl. the slrcut c(luse tlottce, whiclt lerl to pctssing of car.tcelLation oj. D,l,.itrrn pattcl granted itt Jauour of the periticttLer. ts et tlrc instcu,ce of respondent Nos. 4 and S. JVIerellJ becantse responclent Nos. 1 and 5 fuiue beert in 7.lo.ssessrorz of the tand in questiort since seue:ral ,,1ectrs, il is not open Jor lhent to seek can'ceLlation of patta granterlo sorne othet person anil seek assignment qf the :;ame irt lheir fauotLr.,, (Dmphasis added) 12. ht the insLant c.rsc thc sr-rbjcct land assigne(l lanc1 1o the assignee in the yeat, 1975. The rcspondents have issued lhc preserll impugncd resumption ordr,!^s o11 19.L2.2O16 on the ground of violation of assignn.rent conditions afLer 4l year.s. Tl-re linclings of thc abovc Judgments squarery appry to the facts of the instant case as this Court categor.ically helcl that altcr lapse o[ sevcrai year"s, the respondents have no authorit\- to resume the iands on flimsy gr.ourrcls. I3. In the instant casc, the respondent.s resumed the land after a lapse of 4 i years. I, r,ie*, o1- the sarne, the re:spondents have i"o initiate proceedjngs uncler the Land l3 SK,.] rl . '. No.-14 I87 ot 20 I 7 Acquisition Act :rnd pay compcrlsation to l-rc pctitioncr- No.'), ars hcld by the larger Bench of this ( ourt in Land Acquisition OfJicer-Cum-Reaenue Diuisiat' al Officer a' Mekqla Pandu (Supra- 7).

14. In view of the above findings, this ','rit petitron is allos'ed b1' setting aside the impugned order llassed br- thc No.4 proceedings 1n toBlBo2all6 dated 19.12.2016 and also the consc<1 rential orclcrs passed bv tl-rc respondent No.3 anci .2 in r\ppcal No D2l12)l20I 7 dated 06.05.2017 an<l Flo'ision Case No.lr2/ l9O3 l20 17 dated 25.11.2O17 r-espe t tivcly artd thc rcsponden ts are directed to initiatc La : L,l Acqu isition proceedings by following the procedure co n tem platecl under thc Right to Fair Compensation an( Transp:trenc\ in [,and Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ]l:;ettlcment Act 20 l3 lor llaymcnt o[ compensation to 1]L pctitioner lbr acquired land and complete thc same ',ithin four (4) months from the date of receipt of copy ol t tis ordcr and if' thc respondents want to acquire thc renur tring portion of- 14 w.rr.No..14 t87 ,r 2-S(-I', land which was in possession of thc petitroner, therr are directed not to intcrlerc with thc said tand without foliorving due procedure. There shall be no orcler as to C]OSIS t5 c: lo scd Miscellaneous petitior.rs, if an-y, ltending shall stan 11 - That Rule Nisi lrgg made Absolute as above witness .-. The Hon,bte SRt ApARESH_xuMnn 5i*c-i,-ir,Icni"r.lustice on this Wednesday, the Third Day ot SeptembJ;il; iiiJ,i."no and Twenty Five. ,TRUE COPY// SD/. B.REKH ISTANT TRAR SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, of Telangana. ecre riat, Hyderabad, State The Joint collector, S uryapet, Suryapet District, Telangana State The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Suryapet District, Telangana State. The Tahsildar, Suryapet, Suryapet District, Telangana State One CC to SRt PASHAM RAVTNDRA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to GP FOR ASSTGNMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies To, I 2 4 5

6. 7 BSR PVL c/4-- : a t ,i I I I I \ HIGH COURT DATED: 0310912025 I I ' "t:=-- us l'i :;i,-i{€ \( () 0: {i * q llj2lj 6)\ * ORDER WP.No.44187 of 2017 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS .f^I''