Nimma Saritha v. Mandal

Nimma Saritha, W/o Late Sriramulu, Aged about Suryapet Town, Suryapet District, Telangaria state. I years, resident of ...RESPC) IDENT/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the cir: rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders d1.26-12-2017 passed in W.p.l,/.f) No. 54g56 of 2Oj7 in W.P. No. 44252 of 2017 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PASHAM RAVINDRA REDtr' Counsel for the Respondents: SRI HOHD. HABEEBUDDD|t,I AGP FOR ASSIGNME !T The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITTON N0.44252 of 2Ol7 ORDER: This writ pctition is filed qurt:stioning the action of the respondent No.4 in passing the ordcr in Proc.R/8O24l 16, dared L9.12.2O I6 as confirmed by the re spondent Nos.3 ancl 2 in Appeai No.D2/ 124 /2017 , dated 06.05.2017 arrd Revision Casc No.F2 llgol /2017, datcd 25. Ll.2O17 rcspcct.ivcllz, clirccting to resume the assigned agricuitu ral lancl of thc petitioner admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.0O g,rntas in Sy.No.67 I (62 ll5l) situated at Suryarpet Villzrge and Mandal, Suryapet District as arbitrary ancl illegal and rcquested to set asidc the impugned orders.

2. l{eard Sri pash:rm Rarvindra Reddy, icarned counsel lor the pctitioner- arrd Mr. Mohd. Habeebuddin- learned Assistant Governmcnt pleader for Assignment appearing for the rcspondents and perused the material on record. \ \ i 1 I 3 \T1 -- w.P No 442.52 of 2S#'t Learned Counsel for the petition .r submits re asurit-rg to an rt Sury,:lpet in itroner r-ramely the Governlr:ent has assigned the iand ac r extenl" of Ar-. 2_OO tn Sy.No.67I situatcr.l favour of the maternai grandfather of pr lat-c Chitarnalla Venkat aiah (Q \zenkarah. by name papaiah and daughter demise, the petrtioner being the <iaughtt.r ot. :rnd saici paPaiatr succecded Ac. 1 OO r rch r', I o has one son D^^r I rr(,ritlt. 1A. Alt1l. his Pooizrmma and they c6.200 i havc becn cultivating the land b1'raisrng crr.1 s like pziCdy, reed gram and Jowar etc. The respondent:; Itave issued paIta certifica te No.(i/ 1 582 / 2OO 1 clatecl favour of the mothcr of petitioncr, her nalIlc. \ as rntt t a ted rn the revcnue records, pattadar pa ssbooks ar r I titlc dr:r:ds r.r.crc also issLrr:cl in hr:r lavour and srnce t hcn posscssion and cnjoyrlcnt of. thc said land t;r the same. While it being so, after a lapse ol : assignment, the respondent No.4_Tahsildar no tice ciated 31.10.2016 stating that the four-rd to be the transleree of the contrqysp[i6n of thc Provtsions of sub_sectr assrgneri lartcls irr pettl Onel qrilg I .\'ears of cultivating t hc_r.' ar-c in d Form-iI issLr I |2) o1' 3 SK,J W P.No.44252 of 2017 Section 3 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition ol Transfers) Act,l977 and kept the land fallow. The petitioner gave reply on 25.11.2016 along with the relevant documents. The respondent No.4 withouL considering the said documents has passed the impugned ln Proc.No.B/8O24116 dated 19.12.2016 for resumption of the assignecl agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in S-y.No.67 l 167U 51) situated at Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner kept the Iand fallow in violation ol the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.O7.1958. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Ollicer and the sarne was dismissed Appcal No.D2l 124 /2017 dated 06.05.2017. againsl u,hich the petitioner filed revision and the same was also dismissed in Revision Case No.F2l l9ol l20 l7 dated 25.1 l.2Ol7 . .I SI(,J \\ I \o.J1252 oi 2017 4 I.earncd Counsel for the petitr, ltcr further submits that thc pe titioner cultivateci the srt r ject larnd lor the last 19 vcars, as such thc laird cani.tot 1,, r-csumr_'cl on thc vaguc allcgation that the land t<epr allou'. -l'hc impugncd orders \vcre passed withr,.rut cor sidering the procedure ol the A.P.Assigned Lands 1f,r:hibiLiorr of 1'ranslels) Ac-.t. 1977 (for short 'the Act, l97l . lr.hich is a soci;rl lvellarc lcsisl ation J Learned Counsel lor thc petitio ler [ut.tltcr submlls thz.rt Ll-ir: pahanies lor t-he years i9() - ()8 1() 2()l3- I .1, t o whicl-. thc rcsponclcnts are rcfcrring. cannot be taircn inl.o consideruition since the assignmr r t lvas rlone in thc vcar 1975, rnuch prior to the said dar,r zrs such the condition o1- u,ithin three years from r I r: date of assierrrnr:n1 ol thc land cannot_ be said as vio atcci bv the pctitioner. Ttre initiation of impugned a<:ti- 1 i,s pur.cll u,ith a vicu, to avoid payment of comp. lsatlon by acquirir-rg thc land and requestcd to allow the ,,rit petil ion by sctting aside thc irlpugncd orders. 5 S K",, W.P.No.41252 o'i 20)7

6. The learned Assistant Government Plead.er for Assignment basing on the counter liled by thc respondents would submit that the subject land was originally assigned to the mother of petitioner vide Proc.No.G/ 1582l2OOt dated .06.2OO1 under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No. l406 Dt.25.07.1958 subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The Government has identified that the assigned land u'as not brought into cultivation by the assignee or any ol'thc iamily members since the date of assignment whicir is in violation of conditions and as per the entries rnarcle in the pahanies of Suryapet Village from 200 1 to till datc, the subjecr iand was recorded as 'Padava'i.e., left lallorv, and in view of the same, notice was issued to the petitioner. After considering the explanation of the petitioner and after thorough enquiry, the respondent No.4 has passed resumption order on thc ground that the subject land was never cultivated since the datc ot assignmcnt and as per the said order, the subjcct land was taken over possession '-..by the respondent No.4 under a cover of panchanama )- ??:-.\-++* (11 --:r E- \./ I No.,1.12511 ot20l7 datcd 21.1i1.2016 by evicting tht pctitilrnei- Subsequenth', the said order of resumpl on was also confirmed by thc respondent No.3 in Appeal No.D2/ 124 l2()17 dated 06.05.2017 and 1I e responclent No 2 in revision vidc No.F2/ 19Ol I 17 datt r 25.11.2017 He lurther submits that the entries madr: n the perhani shou' t hat the pctiti<lner is in illegal pos. -'ssion ol thc assignr:d land oI ihc original assigne,:r i.c. Cl-rcvula Poolamma and thc petitioner has not lilcd : r v evidence lo sh<>lr' that hor,, shc got the said land a t d she ttevcr cr-rltivalcd thc saici 1and. She furthcr sul rrits thart thc entrres made in the pahani of Suryapet Vrl age fronr 1.1-re year. 1975 to till date shows that the sulr:ct lancl r'r,as kerpt la1lou' sincc 1he date of assigttmc ' . and Ire vcr brought into cultivation. He further sult: its that the assignment patta was cancelled and t iancl \vas resumed on behalf ol the (iovernment anrl herr:forc. the petitioner is not entitlcd for any relief anc requestcd to disrniss the writ petition. Yr\ 7 SK,.,I W P No 142 52 of20l7 7 After hearing both sides and on pursuing the records, this Court is of the considercd view that there is no dispute with regard to the assignment of subject land to the assignee by the respondent authorities in thc year

1975. It is the contention of the petitioner that ever since the date of assignment, her grandfather as ll,ell as petitioner was cultivating the land. While it being, the respondent authorities have issue d notice to the petil-ioner on 31.10.2016 as to why the subject land cannot be resumed for keeping the land fallow. For lvhich the petitioner submitted her reply, hou,ever, the respondent No.4 without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, only basing on the report of Mandal Girdawar, resumed the land on 19.12.2O16. The petitioner aggrievecl by thc resumption orders, fited appeal vide Appeal No.D2/ 124 l2ol7 and the same was dismissed by the respondent No.3 on 06 05.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Revision vide Revision Case No.F2 /7901/2017 and the same was also dismissed on 25.ll.2Ol7 by the respondent No.2 -_t -_*,.'.'.'''r--_-41.--< U S Ii,,J '\ I' No..1.1252 ot 20 i7

8. On perusal of the impugned resumprir .r proceedings vide Ref.No.B/8024/16, dated tg.t2.2016 ssued by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, the sole grou . I is that the petitio.er failed to bring the land into ctLrr 'ation *.ithin three .ycars lron-r the date of assignmen I Whereas in Form-ll noticc datcd 3l.10.2016, it was sr rted thzrt the petitioner r.r,zr s found to be the tralsferee of the assigned lands and in thc colrnter, it rva s stated tha t the assigncd land was not ltroughl under cultivation withr I three years in violation of thr: conclitions as per G. . .Ms.No. I406 dated ?5.07.1c)58. It clea.rly shows that thc resl)ondents have taken cot)lra stand in their counter. Th: responrlents want to acquire the land from the petitit ner r,rrithout paving compcnsation rrndcr the Lald Acquis I on Act.

9. 'lhe Assigr-rees of the Government lancl,. are e.titler,l to pavment ol- compcnsation equivaler-rt to thr lu11 market valuc of thc liurd and other benefits on : tr r,vith full ov,.ners of tht: land even in cases where the as r igned lands are taken possessior-i of by the State in ac<:. dance r,,,,ith \ -\ M- sN !"',,.-.--_.- ,:*.Jii;-. ) I S K.J W.P.No.44252 of '2O17 the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose as held by larger Bench of this Court in Lo.nd Acquisition Offtcer-Cum-Reuenue Divisional OfJicer us. Mekalq Pandut and the facts ol the said Judgment squarely apply to the instant case and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: ' 1 I I . In the circumstances, rl,e hold that the assignees of the gouenlment lands ore entitled to paAnerlt o_f compensation equiualent to the full market ualue of the land and other beneJits on par wtth full ou.tners of the lctrtd et,en in cases where the assigned lands ore laken possesslori o/ bg the State in accordance uith the terms of gront or patto, though such resumption is for a public purpose. We lurtlrcr hold that euen in cases where the State does not irtuoke the couenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for sttch public purpose and resorts to acqutsition of the lattd tuuler the prouisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. the ossignees shall be entitled to compensation as otuners of the land and for all other consequential benefits und_er tlrc prouisions of the Land Acqu[sition Act, 1894. No condiion incorporated in patta/ deed of ctssignment sha operaLe cts a cLog putttng any restiction on the ig ht of the assignec to claim full compensation as oLuner of the land." (Emphasis odded) ' 2oo4 (2) ALT s46 S I(..J ',. I'No 4.1252 oi 2017 \- \ -s,Fi!*i \ r0 Furt jrr:r. thr: pou,er of resumptir r ol assigned lands cannot be extended beyond reasonal le perio<l, anv c\.,cnt, not later than five ro six years. F' en within five to six -Vears \\'helt thc po\ rer has to be c i rrcised, therc must bc necessary ir-rspection by the aullL rrities on the basis of u,hich a der:ision to resume the I I rds be l aken prcr:cCing a noticc to the partics corrcerncd r; held br, this Court irr B.Adinaraga.nd Murthg v. Collec.ora ancl the relevant portion of lhc said judgment is as ir .lows "18. C)rr lhrs qround alone, I mzrsr..j., , the porrr,,r o-f re stirr tltti,orr r:,f rt.ssigrted lands cannot be est n_ded betlortd a reasottable, peiotl, lrt anu c-uent, not latet hart fiue to six rleors. Duert utttlttt.,fitte to sLx years uthen t e pouter has to be cxc:rcisccl. tlrcre rnusl be necessory ir. oection ltq the authoities on tlrc bosis ol uthich a d.ecisir t to resunte. the lcLtrds be takerL S>receding o notice to the pa , es <:oncent-ed. Sr:r'1ro,r I ( 1 )(b) of the AcL enuisages thot ,uetL if there is uiolatuyt oJ' cetlaln tenns a.nd conditions ; I the assi/tee the Lutrd sLioll lx'restored to the assiqnee t,t his leqaL lrcirs rts tl;<, r'ase rnatl be antl if there is a uiolaho, of the tet nts <tf ossigrtntent Jor the second time - it u_toukl e open lo the authoities to resutne the lands, I hatr. tlu,refor,z. no hesitatiott lo scLrl tltat tl-te respondents hatt to authotltA to resunlc tlrc lancls after long lapse of more rt., n 34 Aears ot1 ' 1999 (6) ALr 122 ISB) t - --f:r-a , rl.:iit=;i- 1l SK..J W. P. No.44252 of 20 l7 some JlimsA grounds. TLe fi.rst question is answered accordingly. " I 1. Further, this Court in Jinkq Chendragttdu U Joint Collector$ power to cancel D-Form Patta or resume the land by the Revenue authorities must be exercised within a reasonable time. The relevant potion of the said Judgment is extracted as under: Be thctt as it mag, the petitioner claims that tlrc 't l. lctnd in question tuas assigned to him in the Aeor 1976, and if according to respondent No.3, the land, as per tlrc coru)itions of D Fonn patto, Luas required to bittg the lartcl under cultiuation tuithin three gears from the date of tts issuance, ond if the petitioner failed to bring the land tutcler cuLt[uation, utithin three gears from the date of its issuance, then respondent No.3, ought to haue issued notice callit.cl upon him to shottt cause cs D-Form patta should not be cancelled, immediately afte r expiry of three gears from the date of issuance of the D-Fonn pattct, and insteod of doir-tg that, he has issued the sltout cause rtotice on 17.02.2005 i.e., after lapse of nectrly 30 years. He Jufther submitted that since respondent No.3 lssued the show cause notice after lapse of nearlg 30 Aeors, it tuill ttot be possible to ascertain as to uhether the land ttas brought under cultiuation u,tithin three years frorn the date of issuance of D-Fonn patto or not. to uhA r 2o1L (s) ALT 119 \ t2 SK,J \. ,. No.4425il oI2017 1 2. 'l'his Court in Sekhai AruncL Collecl <tr, Visctlchapctnarn and Madaman,' (clicd) p'p1' l,Rs. u. .loint Collector, Chittoot. [o rtutce'l tha D Fonn patta or tesume t rer)entle ottlltoilies must be exerciserl ut. tinte rnrl that if D-Fonn patt(1 uas tot: qrourtrls on utlLich it ts sought to be cr stated. lo enable the Gssiqnee lo slzorr. ittstctnl case, the D Fonn pcttto u)as can.c€t 30 rlcttt's. anc) the shou' cause notice issu:, clicl ttot s1'tr:ctf1.1 the ground on tuhich tltt, ccutcelle,rl, and in.ia.ct, it is ue,rg clear Jrort a.s r{)(,11 us lh<, record procluced, t.he str.; uthtt'lt led to pclss[ng of canceltalion : granlcd ht .fat,ortr cJ' tlle petitloner, is n resltortclent Nos. l attd 5. Itlerel,a becau:;r ,1 anrl :i ltat,e been. in po.sse-s-sion o/ lia: sinr:e seueral 11eurs, il is not open .fc r r:antceLLc.ition of 1;allc grartted lo sorne otlu,r assicltLtrLcrrl of the sarne hr their Jauour.'' iurnai u. Dist. i Ch[rutasutamA lrcLd that potuer 'e lartd. Ltq thc in e. reasonable, t cancelled. the rcelled houe to ccu)se. In the td cLit.er ktpse o.l' I it t.hat regard, DK'[ tuas to be the procercdin.gs tt ca.u.se noticr:, D Fonn patla the itstctr-tce oJ 'espctnclen.l Nos. tnd in qttestton tltent kl seek ,erson uncJ seek {Er phasis added) 12, In t hc insLru-rt case the subject land as: gne d lan([ to thc assigncc ln thc -vear, 1975. The resJr ndents havc issucd tl-re preserrt impugned resuinptl( r orders oil

19.12.2O16 on thc grouncl of violation () assignntent conditi()ns after 41 years. The lindings ,f 1l-le above .J,clgrnt'rrts squai'c,l' ilppl-y to lhc lacts .f tl-r: i,stant cil:;r. I i 7 t3 SK,J W. P. No.44252 of 20 l7 as this Court categorically held that after lapse o[ severa] years, the respondents have no authority to resume the lands on flimsy grounds.

13. In the instant case, the respondents resumed the land after a lapse of 41 years. In view of the same, the respondents have to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and pay compensation to the petitioner No.2, as held by the larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition OfJicer-Cum-Reaenue Divisional OfJicer u. Mekala Pandu (Supra- 7).

14. In view of the above findings, this'writ petition is allor,r,'ed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the No.4 1n proceedings 1n No.BlBo2a/b dated 19.12.2016 and also the consequential orders passed by the respondent. No.3 and 2 in Appcal No.D2/124/20 17 dated 06.05.2017 and Revision Case No.F2/ l9?l /2017 dated 25.1I.2017 respectively and the respondents are directed to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings by follou,ing the procedure as conterrrplated '.'..*j.*:?'1-+d. 14 SK $,. '. No..l:1252 oi201 under the Right to Fair Compensation and lransparencl. in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Rer; ttlement. Act, 2013 for payment ol compensation to the petitioner for acquired lan ci and complete the same rr, ,hin four (4) months frcm the date of receipt of copy of 1lL s order and if the respondents r,vani. to acquire the remain ng portion of land which was in possession of the petitrc rer, thev are dircctcd not t,o interferc with thc said and without lollowing due proceciure, T1-rere shall be tL, order as to costs.

15. Miscellaneous petitrons, il anr., pendir g shal1 stand clo sed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute a:; rbove Witness THE HON'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE APARE i 'l KUMAR SINGH WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTI: IBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FI!I "SD/- SRINIVASA REDDY AI; iISTANT REGISTRAR " i/TRUE COPY// L- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secre t rriat. T.S.,Hyderabad- 2. The Joint cbllector, Sudyapet, suryapet district, Telanrl na Slatg 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, suryapet Dil lrict, lelangana State 4. The Tahsildar, Suryapet, suryapet District, Telangana I tate. 5. One CC to SRI PASHAM RAV|TOnR REDDY, Advcc rte [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNMENT ,High Court for I r State of Telangana 7. Two CD CoPies at Hyderabad [OUT] B IVI BS $N .l HIGH COURT DATED:0310912025 ORDER WP.No.44252 ot 2017 ,'.''f;tHE-Se'E ;6' ) 03 r.iB 2026 ,:) * * PATC ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITI- OUT COSTS ",t" B$- )/a\t