Panga Hari Krishna v. Secretariat, Hyderabad

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitlon, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt. 02.01 20'18 passed in WPMP No. 54189 ol 2017 in WP No. 43712 of 2017 and dismiss the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PASHAM RAVINDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MOHD. HABEEBUDDIN, AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.437L2 of 2OL7 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.4 in passing the order 1n Proc.B/8O24l16, dated 19.12.2016 as confirmed by the respondent Nos.3 and 2 in Appeal No.D2/L3212O17, dated 06.05.2017 and Revision Case No.P2l1676l2ol7, dated 25. 11.2017 respectively, directing to resume the assigned agricultural land of the petitioner admeasuring to an extent o[ Ac.1.00 guntas 1n Sy.No.671 (671/241 situated at Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District as arbitrary and illegal and requested to set asidc the impugned orders. 2 Heard Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohd. Habeebuddin, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents and perused the material on rccord I I 2 SK,J W.P.No.43712 of 2017

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government has assigned the land admeasuring to ar] extent of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.67 1 situated at Suryapqt in favour of the maternal grandfattrer of petitioner namely Kola Chandraiah arnd patta certificate was issued .vide proceedings No.84/5638 174 dated 04.1 i.1975. After,his demise, the petitioner and his brotl-rr:r had inherited the said land by entering into lamily arrangement where under they have got Ac. 1-00 each, their names were mutated in the revenue records anrl pattadar passbogks and title deeds were also issued in their favour and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said lald by cultivating the serrre. Wtrile it being so, after a lapse of 4l years of'assignrnent, the respondent No.4- Tahsildar issued Form-l notice datcd 04.10.2016 stating that the petitioner has kept thc sulrject land as fallow in violation of the provisions ol Section 4 of Telangana Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfbrs) Act, 1977 and Form-II notice was issued on 31.10.2016 stating that the \ |etitioner was found to be the transieree of the assigned 3 SK,J W.P.No.43712 of 2017 lands in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The petitioner gave replies on

19.10.2016 and 21.1I.2016 along with the relevant doctrments. The respondent No.4 without considering the said documents has passed the impugned order 1n Proc.No.B/8024/16 dated 19.12.20L6 for resumption of the assigned agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-O0 gts in Sy.No.67l 167l/24) situated at Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner kept ttre land fallow in violation of the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958. Questioning the said order, the petitioner Iiled appeal before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer and the sarne was dismissed vide Appeal No.D2l132/2017 dated 06.05.2017, against which the petitioner hled revision and the sarne was also dismissed in Revision Case No.F2l 1676/2OL7 dated 25. LL.2O17",.- ',, , / 4 SK,J W.P.No.43712 of 20 l7

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner cultivated the subject land for the last 19 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, 1977 (for short the Act, 1977|., which is a social welfare legislation. I J Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the pahanies for the years 1997-98 to 2Oi3- 14, t.o which the respondent.s are rr:ferring, cannot be taken into consideration since the assignmcnt was rlone in the year 1975, much pricr to the said date as such the condition of within three years from the date of assignment of the land cannot be said as violated by the petitioner. The initiation of impugned action is purely with a view to avoid payment of compensation by acquiring the \a land and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders. I I 5 SK,\' W.P.No.437l2 of 2017 6 The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment basing on the counter Iiled by the respondents would submit that the subject land was originally assigned to one Kola Chandraiah vide Proc.No.B4l5638174 dated 04.1I.1975 under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.l406 Dt.25.O7.1958 subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The Government has identified that the assigned iand was not brought into cultivation by the assignee or any of the family members since the date of assignment which is in violation of conditions and as per the entries made in the pahanies of Suryapet Village from 1975 to till date, the subject land was recorded as 'Padava'i.e., left lallow, and in view of the sarne, notices were issued to Lhe petitioner. After considering the explanations ol the petitioner and after thorough enquiry, the respondent No.4 has passed resumption order on the ground that the subject land was never cultivated since the date of assignment and as per the said order, the subject land u'as taken over possession by the respondent No.4 under a cover of panchanama "/ 6 SK,J W.P.No.437l2 of 2017 dated 2L.12.2OL6 by evicting the petitioner. Subsequently, the said order of resumption was also confirmed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal No.D2ll32l2ol7 dated 06.05.2017 and the respondent No.2 in revision vide No.F2l1676117 dated 25.11.2017. He further submits that the entries made in the pahani of Suryapet Village shows that the subject land was kept fallow since the date of assignment and never brought into cultivation. He further submits that the assignment patta was cancelled and the land was resumed on behalf of the Government and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7 After hearing both sides and on pursuing the records, this Court is of ttre considered view that there is no dispute with regard to the assignment of subject land I to the maternal grandfather of petitioner by the respondent authorities in the year 1975 and alter his death, the petitioner has inherited the subject tand. It is 7 SK,J W.P.No.43712 of 2O 17 the contention of the petitioner that ever since the date of assignment, his grandfather as well as petitioner was cultivating the land. While it being, the respondent authorities have issued notices to the petitioner on O4.LQ.2OI6 and 31.10.2016 as to why the subject land cannot be resumed for keeping the land fa-llow. For which the petitioner submitted his replies, however, the respondent No.4 without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, only basing on the report of Mandal Girdawar, resumed the land on 19.12.2016. The petitioner aggrieved by the resumption orders, filed appeal vide Appeal No.D2/ I32 l2ol7 and the sarne was dismissed by the respondent No.3 on 06.05.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner flled Revision vide Revision Case No.F2 l1676l2ol7 and thc same was also dismissed on25.lL.2Ol7 by the respondent No.2.

8. On perusal of the impugned resumption proceedings vide Ref.No.Bl8024l16, dated 19.12.20 16 issued by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, the sole ground is that the \petitioner failed to bring the land into cultivation within / I l l 8 SK,J W.P.No.437l2 of 20i7 three years from the date of assignment. Whereas in Forrn-ll notice dated 31.10.2016, it was stated that the petitioner was found to be the transferee of the assigned lands and in the counter, it was stated that the assigned land was not brought under cultivation within three years in violation of the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No. 1406 dated 25.O7.1958. It clearly shows that the respondents have taken contra stand in their counter. The respondents want to acquire the land frorn the petitioner without paying compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

9. The Assignees of the Government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value ol 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 r,vith the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is lor a public purpose as held by larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-Qtm-Reoenue Diudsional 9 SK,J W,P.No.43712 of 2O17 OJlicer os. Mekala Pandul and the facts of the said Judgment squarely apply to the instant case and the relevant portion of tJ:e said Judgment is as follows: "111. In the ciranmstances, we hold that the assignees of ifu gotamment lands ore entitled" to pagment of amper*ation equiualent to the full market ualue of the land and other benefits on par uith full owners of the land euen in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of bg the State in accordane uith the terms of grant or patta, ttaugh such resumption is for a public purpose. We furttter hold that iven in cases where the Stote does not inuoke the cnuenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for such public purpose and resorts to acquisition of the land under tle provisior* of tle Lond Ac4uisitton Act , 1 8 9 4 , the assignees slnll be entitled to compensation as ouLners of tle land and for all other consequential benefits under the prouisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1891. No condition incorporated in patta/ deed of assignment shall operate os a clog puttirq anA restiction on the igltt of the assignee to claim fulI compensation as owner of the lattcl." (Enphr:sis added)

10. Further, the power of resumption of assigned lalds cannot be extended beyond reasonable period, 1n any event, not later than five to six years. Even within hve to six years when the power has to be exercised, there l ' 2oo4 (2) ALT 546 I 10 SK,J W.P.No.43712 of 20 17 must be necessary inspection by the authorities on the basis o[ which a decision to resume the lands be taken preceding a notice to the parties concerned as held by this Court in B.Adinaragana Murthg a. Colbetof and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: "18. Orr this ground alone, I lnust sag, the pouer of resuntption of assigned lands cannot be ertend"ed begond a no! later ttnn fiue to six reasortable peiod, in any .euent, years. Euen uithin fiue to srx years wlen tlw power has to be exercised, there must be neessary hspection bg the authoities on the basis of uthich a decision to resum-e tke lands be taken preceding a notie to th9 parties ancented. Section +(1)(b) of the Act enuisages th.at euen if there is uiolation of cefiain ierms and crlnditiar,s bg tle assignee the land shall be restored. to the assignee or his tegal lrcirs as the ca se ntay be and if there i.s a .uiolation of .th.e tenns of a.ssignment for the second titue, it utould be open to the authoities tc resume the lands. I haue, therefore, no hesitation to s(lA that the respond.ents haue no authoity to resume the lands after long lapse of more than 34 Aeors on sonte ftimsg grounds. The first questio/L is anstaered accordingly." 11 Furthcr. tl-ris Court in Jinka Chendragudu u Joint Collector3 pou,cr to carrcel D-Form Patta or resume \ rsss (o) ALr 322 (sB) ' 20r r (s) ALT 119 1t SK,J W .P.No.43712 of 2Ql7 the land by the Revenue authorities must bc exercised within a reasonable time. The relevant potion of the said Judgment is extracted as under: "11. k ttwt as it mag, tLe petitioner claims that the land in qtestion was assigned to him in the gear 1976, and if acmrding to respondent No.3, tLe land, as per the conditions of D-Form patta, uas required to bring the land under atltiuation within three gears from tlrc date of its issuance, and if tte petitioner failed to bing the land under cultiuation, uithin three gears from ttte date o/ its issuancra, tlen respond"ent No.3, ougtt to haue issued notice calling upon him to shaw cause as to uhA the D-Fonn patta staud not be cancelled, immediately after expiry of three gears from the date of issuance of the D-Fom patta, and instead of doing tlaL fe ho's issued the sLnw cause rwtie on 17.02.2005 i.e., afier lapse of nearly 30 gears. He furttrer submitted that since respondent No.3 issued tLe show cause notice afier lapse of nearlg 3O years, it will not be possible to ascertain os to uhether the land utas broughl under anltiuation uLithin three years from tlw date of issuane of D-Form patta or not. This Court in Sekhari Aruna Kumai u. Dist. 12. Collector, Visaktw,patnam ond Modamaneni ChinnasluamA (died) per LRs. u. Joint Collector, Chittoor, held that pouter to cancel the D-Form patta or tesume the land, by the reuenue autlaities must be exercised uithin a reasonable time and tfd if D-Form patta was to be cancelled. the grounds on tuhich it rs sought to be cancelled haue to stated, to enable tle assignee to show cause. In the I \ t2 SK,J W.P.No.43712 of 20 17 instant case, the D-Form patta utas canelled afier lapse of 3O gears, and tlrc sLLow cause notie issued in tlnt regard, did not spectfu tlw ground on which the DKT tuas to be cancelled, and in folct, it is uery clear irom the proceedings as well as the record produced., the shout cause notice, uthich led to passing of cancellation of D-Form patta granted in fauour of the petitioner, is at ttte instane of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Merely because respondent Nos. 4 and 5 haue been in possession of the land. in qtestion since seueral Aears, it is not open for them- to seek carrcellation of patta granted to some otler person and seek assigttment of th.e same in their fauour." (Dmplwsis ddded)

72. Iir the instant case the subject land assigned land to the assignee in the year, 1975. The respondents have issueci the present impugned resumption orders on

19.12.2016 or-r the grr.rund of rriolation of assignment conditions afLer 41 years. The findings of the above Judgments squarelv apply to the facts of the instant case as this Court categorically held that after lapse of several years, thr: rcspondellts have no authority to resume the lands on flimsy grounds l3 ln the instant case, the respondents resumed the land after a lapse of 41 years. In view of the same, the SK,J W.P.No.43712 of 2O l7 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 Acguisition OfJicer-Cum-Reuerute Dluisional Officer a. Mekala. Pandu (Supra- 7 ).

14. In view of the above findings, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the No.4 1n proceedings 1n No.B/8024/16 dated 19.12.2016 and also the consequential orders passed 'by the respondent No.3 and 2 in Appeal No.D2lL32l2Ol7 dated O6.05.2017 and Revision Case No.F2l 1676l2Ol7 dated 25.LL.2017 respectively and the respondents are directed to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings by lollowing the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 lor payment of compensation to the petitioner lor acquired land and complete the same within lour (4) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and il t I t \ I i I I I 14 SK,J w.P.No.43712 of 2017 the respondents want to acquire the remaining portion of land which was in possession of the petitioner, they are directed not to interfere with the said land without following due procedure. There shall be no order as to costs.

15. Miscelianeous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. \ To, SDi.P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary. Revenue Department, Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderabad 2. The Joint collector. Sueyapet, suryapet district, Telangana State. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapel, suryapet District, Telangana State 4. The Tahsildar, Suryapet. suryapet District, Telangana State. 5. One CC to SRl. PASHAM RAVINDRA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNMENT ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies BM BS HIGH COURT DATED:0310912025 --::':-::. t, 2 { JA}l 2026 ORDER WP.No.43712 of 2017 * I I * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ Jks l4 1 L6