Mohd. Jani Pasha v. l.TheStateofTelangana

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: ORDER w I I I I I i i I t ! I I i i I I i ! I I I i I I I I i i l : I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.4229L of 2O1-? ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings No.B/31O4l2016 dated 22"O3.2017 issued by the respondent No.3 in rejecting the claim of petitioner for re- assignment of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.O-3O% gts 1n Sy.No.626 situated at I\4irya1aguda Revenue Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, in his favour as illegal and errbitrary.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignmcnt.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of petitioner has purchased a part of assigned land admeasuring to art extent of Ac.0-30% gts in Sy.No.626 situated at Miryalaguda Revenue Village lrom the original assignee Ubbapalli Saidulu through registered sale deed bearing document No.1964 of 1980 dated 22.O2. 1980 and alter his death, the petitioner has succeeded the said 2 SK, J W ' No.42291 ot 2017 property. He submits that the respondent \o'3 has issued resumption proceedings No'B/787 | ,t 1'997 dated lo.l2.l9g7 on the ground of violation of assignment conditions, against the dead persons i'e', <'riginal assignee late Ubbzrpalli Saidulu and his father late Y'rusuf Khan The petitioner: and his mother have filed suit in O'S'No'176 of 2OO2 or1 the hle of Principal Junior Civil Judge' Miryalag.rda, lor dcclaration and the sam': r'vas dismissed on O2.O7.2OO8. Thereafter, the petitioner and his mother have made a representation to the ;:espondents on 18.07.2008 for reassignment of the said larrd' but n<l action has been taken and as such the petitioner has filed W.P.No.l8660 of 2OO8 and the sarne wa:i clisposed of on 28.O8.2C1O8. Pursuant to the said order, tlre represt:ntation of petiti,tner was recommended by the r:spondent No'3- Tahsildar vide letter No.B2 l21475l09 dat':d 26 08 '2OO9 to the respondent No.2-District Collector'

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner also made another representation to the 3 SK, J WP No.42291 of 2Ol7 respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 12.Q9.2Q16 fot reassignment of the subject land and as no action was taken, he a-lso filed W.P.No.38686 of 2OL6 and the sarne was disposed of on 2a.ll.2ol6 directing the respondent No.3 to take action upon the representation of petitioner dated 12.09.2016 Pursuant to the said order, the respondent No.3 has issued impugned proceedings No.B/31Oal2016 dated 22.O3.2017 rejecting the request of petitioner for regolatization and re- assignment of the subject land on the ground that there was no stmcture as required under G.O'Ms.No.59 Revenue (Assn.l) Department dated 30. L2.2014, the land is located within the municipal limits which is prohibited for assignment under G.O.Ms.No.1493 Revenue (Assn.POT) Department dated O 1. 72.2OO7 and the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.O-15 gts was already alienated to rural Police Station

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned proceedings were issued against the dead persons and also without issuing any notice to the 4 SK, J t\,tP No. 1229 l'- o1 20 17 petitioner and without conducting any enrluiry, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. He s,ubmits that the ground invented by the respondent .rlo.3 that part of Iand was alienated to rural police station rs corrtraly to the orders of the District Collector arrd the datc of alleged alienation was not mentioned in the impu€rned proceedings. He further submits that the petitioner,s clairrL has to be considered under Section a(i) of the Amer:cled l\ct No.21 of 2008 and requested to allolr, the writ petition by directing the respondents to reassign the subject lanl to petitioner.

6. Learned Assistant Government pleade r for Assignment basing on the counter submits that the land in. Sy.No.626 situated at Miryalaguda Vilage and Mandzrl is (iovernment land classified as 'r(harijkhatha'in the reve.,ue records with a total extent of Ac. 13.10 gts and out ol.the said land, Ac. 12.30 gts was assigned to thirteen landlt,:ss poor persons leaving balance extent of Ac.O.20 gts in th,: year 1975_26. Out of them, Ac. 1.20 gts of land was assigr:Led to Ubbapally Saidulu as per G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue dr,rted i1S.O7.195g \ \ 5 SK, J WP No.42291 of 2Ol7 with a condition of non-alienation, but he sold the lald to an extent of Ac.0.30% gts out of Ac.1.20 gts to the father of petitioner vide registered document No.1964/ 1980 dated 22.07.1980 in contravention of Section 3(21 of the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, L977 and as such, notices were issued to the petitioner and also to the original assignee on 20.08.1997 and the same was served on the brother of petitioner on 29.08.1997. He submits that after hearing the case, the respondent No.3 has issued proceedings No.Dl787 l/1997 dated 1O.L2.1997 cancelling the patta issued in favour of the original assignee ald directed the Revenue Inspector, Miryalaguda to take over possession of the subject land and accordingly resumed the land and took possession of the same under cover of panchanama on 1 1.12.L997. He submits that the petitioner has not filed any appeal or revlslon as provided under Section 4(A) or a(B) of the POT Act and it attained hnality.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that out of the resumed land to an extent of I 6 SK, J 'd P No..12291 cf 2017 Ac.0.3O7? gts, Ac.O. 15 gts of land was alienatr:d to Rural Police Station, Miryalaguda and Ac.O-14 % gts is covered by State High Way from Addanki to Narketpall,r leav.'ng only 66 sq. yards wherein the petitioner has cons Lructt:d a. house and the said land was regularized in his far,our on payment of value as per G.O.Ms.No.59 (Assignmerrt-l) Department dated 30.12.2014 through registererl sale deed No.5808120i6 in File No.Bl206l2O15 and the remaining land of Ac.O.29 74 gts was covered by Rur;rl police Station, Miryalaguda and State High Way frorlr Addanki to Narketpally and therefore, the request c,f pel.itioner for regularizzrtion was not considered.

8. Lealned Assistant Government F,leade r further submits that the suit filed by petitioner irL O.S.No.lZ6 of 2OO2 orr the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalagtrda rvas dismissed on 02.07.2008 z:.nd no appeal is filed by the petitioner and as such he is not. entitled for re- assignment as per Amended Act 2l of 20C8. I-{e submits that the Tahasildar in his letter No.Eit2/21473l2OOg, / 7 SK, J WP No.42291 of 2017 dated 26.08.2009 has reported the fact of a,lienation in favour of Rural Police Station, Miryalaguda, but he has omitted to mention about formation of road in an extent of Ac.O.l4s/+ gts which was very much existing as on that date. He further submits that the petitioner is not landless poor person and he is not entitled for re-assignment of subject land as the land resumed by the Government was already alienated in favour of Rural Police Station, Miryalaguda to an extent of Ac.O.15 gts and Ac.O.14 % gts of land is covered by the State High Way during the year 2OO2 arrd there is no land available on ground to consider the request of petitioner. He further submits that the District Collector, Nalgonda has instructed the Tahsildar, Miryalaguda vide Lr.No.E1l9142/2OO9 dated 21.\2.2OO9 to safeguard the Iand as per the orders of this Court and out of the resumed land of Ac.O.3O'/c gts, 66 sq. yards was under the custody of the petitioner by constructing a house and the same was regularized in his favour as per G.O.Ms.No.S9 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 30.12.2014. He further submits that the subject land was already utilized for \ \ 8 SK, J \.\ I) No.41229I of 2017 Government purpose six years prior to hling of W.P.No.18660 of 20OB and pursuant to the order dated 12.09.2016 in W.P.No.38686 of 201ri. the: impugned proceedings were issued and requested to ,lismiss the writ petition.

9. After hearing both sides and perusal o the r-ecord, this Court is of the considered view that the in the instant writ petition, the petitioner rs questioning t lte F,rocr:edings issued by the respondent No.3 dated 22.O3.2Ct17 in rejecting the claim of petitioner wir 1-r respr:ct to reassignment of land admeasurirr.g to an extt:nt ol Ac.O 30% gts 1n Sy.No.626 situated rrt N,liryalaguda Revenue Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District . The contention of petitioner is that his father ha.; pur:hased the land through registered document No. I 964 of l98O dated22.O7.1980 from one late Ubbapalli SiLidulu, wlro was the original assignee of the Government lrnd. In view of contravention of Section 3(2) of Telangana \ssigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, t1e respondent i I I I I ! i 9 SK, J WP No.42291 of 2Ol7 authorities have initiated proceedings of resumption and taken possession of the same under cover of panchanama on 11..12.1997 and against the said orders, the petitioner and his family members have not filed any appeal or revision as provided under the POT Act and as such the resumption order has attained finality. Thereafter, out of Ac.O.30 gts, the Government has alienated the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.O.15 gts to Rural Police Station Miryalaguda and Ac.0. l$+g!-s of land was allotted to State High Way from Addanl<i to Narketpally leaving 66 sq yards, wherein the petitioner has constructed a house. As per G.O.Ms.No.59 Revenue (Assignment-l) Department dated 30. 12.2014, the said land was regularized through registered sale deed No.5808/2016 in File No.Bl206/2015 and there is no land available on the gror.rnd. Moreover, the petitioner is not a landless poor as his father has purchased the land from the original assignee and the authorities have initiated proceedings under POT Act in the year 1997 and the said proceedings have become hnal and \ subsequently the land was allotted to the Rural Police i ; 10 SK, J \\ P No.42291 of 2017 , Station ard the State High Way. Earlier, tLre petitioller and his mother have hled suit in O.S.No.176 of 2OO2L on the hie of Junic,r Civil Judge, Miryalaguda and the same was dismissed on O2.O7.2OO8 and no appeal is filed against the said Judgment and in view of the same, the petitioner is not entitled lbr reassignment of the subject lanrl.

10. TLLe contention of the respondents is that before filing W.P.No.18660 of 2O0B and W.P.No.38686 of 20 16, the subject land was utilized by the Government and the petitioner has not denied the said contention by showing any document. In view of the same, witlrout there being any land available as on this date, l.he cluestion of reassignrnent of lald to the petitioner dot:s not arise and therefore, the impugned proceedings issued lry the responde:nt No.3 needs no interference by this Court and the writ petition is liable to dismissed as de,roid ol merits

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disnrissed. No order as to costs. l ) ; t i I I t I w 1l SK, J WP No.42291 of 2Ol7

12. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed. SD,. M.OSMAN ASSISTANT RE ALI BAIG STBAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI FICER To, 1 2 3 BM PSK ?*: 3 3 Ji"'8i F JtrS5Affif=ft '-?B'l it'L?'!il? tnol 331' or re I a n s a n a at Hvderabad [OUT] Two'CD CoPies (o- HIGH COURT DATED:2510612025 I ---:-":-r:= a: "r\..- oo\, a\ 16 SEP 2025 \ I o^.. '.:-' -i---, r' -- ..? ORDER WP.No.42291 ot 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITIHOUT COSTS (r 1{dt") @ I i I I I I I