The High Court · 2025

Proc.No. 818024116 ot.19-12-2o16 as confirmed by the respondent No.2 and 3 Revision case No. F2t'r67sr2o1r by order dated 2s-11-2017 and Appear No.2l133l2o1i' Dt.06-05-20i 7 respectivety pending disposat of the above writ petition. OF , 3!11?,lJ,"lflt??l6;o*"0 by Principar Secretary, Revenue Department,

2. The Joint Collector,_Suryapet, Suryapet District Telangana State. 3. The Rev,anue Divisionar officer, Suryapet, suryapet District rerangana state 4. The Tahr;ildar, Suryapet, Suryapet District Telangana State. D ...PETIT|ONERS/RESPONDENTS l_anga Ramakrjshna S/o Venkateswarlu, Aged about 49 years, resident of pef O Gtii"t, f-eiL-,i g:" r; M utya la m ma B:rzar, S u rya pet Town, S u ryai et ManA J[ State. -surva t n PONDENT/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt: 02.01 .2018 passed in WP.MP.No. 54202 of 2O1T in W.P.No. 43723 of 2017 anddismiss the writ petition. Counselfor the Petitioner: SRt PASHAM RAVINDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MOHD. HABEEBUDDIN, AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the folloring: ORDER L ) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH PETITION No. 723 of 2OLZ ORDER: This writ petition is fired questioning the action of the :iespondent No.4 in passing the order in Proc.Er/8o24 /16, dated 19. 1 2.2016 as confirmed by the resporrdent Nos.3 and 2 in Appeal No.D2 / ts3 /2017 , dated '06.05.2017 and Revision case No.F2 /167s/2oLT, dated 25.L1 .2OL7 respectively, rdirecting to resume the assigned agricultural 1ancl of the Sretitio.er adrneasuring to an extent of Ac. r .00 guntas in Sy.No.671 (6zL /23) situatr:d at Suryapet Village ancl Mandal, Suryapet Distri<:t as arbitrary and illegal and requested to set aside the impu{{rea orders. 2' Heard Sri pasham Ravindra Reddy, rearned couns':l for the petitioner and Mr. Mohd. Habeebuddin, Iearned Assistant Goverrrment preader for Assignment appea|ing for the respondents and perused the material on record. I \ i, o SK,J W.P.No.43723 of 2Ol7 ! I I I I\

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government has assigned the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-00 in Sty.No.671 situated at Suryapet in favour of the maternal grandfather of petitioner namely Kola Chandraiah and patta certificate was issued vide proceedings No.B4/ 5635/74 dated o4.LL.1975. After his clemise, the petitioner ancl his brother had inherited the said land by entering into family arrangement where under they have got Ac. 1-OO each, their na.Ines were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land by cultivating the same. while it being so, after a lapse of 41 years of assignment, the respondent No.4- l Tahsildar issued Form-l notice dated o4.L0.2016 stating that the petitioner has kept the subject land as fallow in violation of the provisions of Section 4 of Telangana Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and Form-II notice was issued on 31.10.2016 stating that the 74>etitioner was found to be the trarrsferee of the assigned \ ,',1 , 3 SK,J W.P.No.43723 of 20LT lands in contravention of the provisions of sub-sec t:on (2) of Section 3 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (prohibition of Trarsfers) Act,19T7. The petitioner gave replies on 19.1o.tl,oL6 and 2L.Lr.2oL6 along with the relevant documents. The respondent No.4 without considering the said d.ocuments has passed the impugned ord.er in Proc.Nr:.8 /8024 / 16 dated 19. 1 2.2oL6 for resumption of the as:signed agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.67r (6TLl23) situated at Suryapet village and Mandal, suryapet District from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner kept the land fallow in violati.n of the conditions as per G.o.Ms.No. 1406 dated 25.o7.1958. euestioning the said order, the petitiorrer filed appeal before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional officer and. the same was dismissed vide Appeal No . D2 ,/ 733 / 20 rr dated 06 .os .2o tr , against which the petitio:eer filed revision and the sarne was also dismissed in Revision case No.F2l r67s/2017 dated 2s.rL.2oLT. a 4 SK,J W.P.No.43723 of 2Ol7 4 Learned Counsel for thp 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 tand kept fallow. The impugned orders were passed without considering the procedure of the A.P.Assignec Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, t977 (for short 'the Act, 19771, which is a . social welfare legisiation.

5. Learned counsel ior the petitioner further submits that the pahanies for the years 1997 -98 to 201.3- L4, to which the respondents are referring, cannot be taken into consideration since the assignment was done in the year 1975, much prior to the- said date as such the condition of within three years from the date of by the assignment of the land cannot be said as "'iolated petitioner. The initiation of impugned action is purely with a view to avoid payment of compensation by _ S.ruiring the land and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders. I 5 SK,J W.P.No.43723 of 2OLT

6. The learned Assistant Government pleader for Assignment basing on the counter filed by the respondents would submit that the subject land was originally assigned to one Kola chandraiah vide Proc.No.B4/5638/74 dated o4.tL.Lgrs under the provisions of G.o.Ms.No. 1406 Dt.2s.or.195g subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The Government has identifled that the assigned land was not brought into cultivation by the assignee or any of the family members since the date of assignment which is in violation of conditi.ons and as per the entries made in the pahanies of Suryapet Village from rgzs to titl date, the subject land was recorded as 'Padava'i.e., left fallow, and in view of the same, notices were issued to the petitioner. After considering the explanations of 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 sa:d order, the subject land was taken over possession by the' respondent No.4 under a cover of panchanama I 6 SK'J W.P.No.43723 of 2A17 dated 2L.12'20L6 by evicting the petitioner' Subsequently, the said order of resumption was also confirmed by the respondent No'3 in '{ppeal No.D2/ tg3l2OL7 dated O6'O5'2AL7 anci the respondent No.2 in revision 'ride No'F2/ 1675117 dated 25'Ll'2O17 ' Hefurthersubmitsthattheentriesmadeinthepahaniof Suryapet Village shows that the subject land was kept fallow since the date of assignment and never brought intocultivaticn.Hefurthersubmitsthattheassignment pattawas tatt"ll"d and the land was resumed' on behalf oftheGovernmentand.therefore,thepetitionerisnot entitledforanyreliefandrequestedtodismissthewrit petition 7 . After hearing both sides and on pursuing the record.s,thisCourtisoftheconsid'eredviewthatthereis i nodisputewithregardtotheassignmentofsubjectland to the maternal grandfather of petitioner by the respondent authorities in the year lg75 and after his death,thepetitionerhasinheritedthesubjectland.Itis / t t' 7 SK,J W.P.No.43723 of 2Ol7 the contention of the petitioner that ever since the date of assignment, her grandfather as well as petitioner was cultivating the land. While it being, the respondent authorities have issued notices to the petitioner on O4.LO.2OL6 and 31.10.2016 as to why the subject land cannot be resumed for keeping the land fallow. For which the petitioner submitted his replies, however, the respond.ent 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 A.ppeal No.D2 /133/2OI7 and the sarne was dismiss,ed by the respondent No.3 on 06.05.20L7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Revision vide Revision Case No.F2/ L675l2Ot7 and the same was also dismiss;ed on 25.1'l.2OL7 by the respondent No.2. g. Orr perusal of the impugned resumption proceedings vide Rr:f.No.B /8024/16, dated 19.12.2016 issued by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, the sole ground is that the petitioner failed to bring the land into cultivation within \ \ L, 8 SK,J W.P.No.43723 of 2017 three years from the date of assignment. whereas in Form-II notice dated 3t.ro.2ol6, 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 vears in violation of the conditions as per G.O.lVIs.No.1406 dated 25.A7.1958. It cleerly shows that the respondents have taken contra stand in their counter. The respondents want to acquire the land from the petitioner withou-t paying compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

9. The Assignees of the Government lands are entitled to payrnent of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands a are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms .of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose as held by larger Bench of this Court in Land . Acquisition Diaisional ) J 9 SK,J W.P.No.43723 of 2017 Olftcer as. Mekala Pandul and the facts of the said Judgment squarely apply to the instant case and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: .1 1 1 . In the circamstances, we Lold .that the assignees of the gouemment lands are entitled to pagment of compensation equiualent to the full market ualue of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land euen in ccses uthere the assigned lands are taken possession of by the Sta.te in accordance with. the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose. We further hold that euen in cases where the State does not inuoke the couenant of the grant or patta to resume the tand. for such public purpose and resorts to acquisition of the land und.er the prouisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1g94, tt@ assignees shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits und_er tle prouisions of the Land. Acquisition Act, 1g94. No condition incorporated in patta/ deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting ang restiction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as otuner of the land.', (Emphasis add.ed)

10. Further. the power of resumption of assigned lands cannot be extended beyond reasonable period, in any event, not later than five to six years. Even within five to six years when the power has to be exercised, there I 2oo4 (:l) ALT 546

10. SK,J W.P.No.43723 of 2OlV must be necessarJr inspectioll by the authorities on the basis of 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. Collectofi anci the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: "18. On this ground alone, I must say, the pouter of resumption of assigned lands cannot be extended bettond a reasonable period, in ang'euerlt, not later than fiue to six Aears. Euen uithin fiue to six years wLten tlrc power has to be exercised, there must be necessary inspection bt1 the authorities on the basis of ttthich a decision to resume the land.s be taken preced.ing a notice to tLrc parties concerned. Section 4(1)(b) of t?rc Act enuisages that euen if there is uiolation of ceftain terms and conditions by the assignee the land shall be restored to the assignee or his legal heirs a.s the case maA be and if there is a uiolation of tlrc terms of assigrunent for th.e second time,.it utould be open to the authorities to restme the lands. I haue, therefore, no hesitation to say that the respondents haue no authority to resume the lancl.s ctfter long lapse of m.ore than 34 Aears on some fLimsg grounds. Ttrc first question is ansutered accordingly." I I 1. Further, ttris Ccurt in Jinka Chendragudu a. Joint Collectors power to cartcel D-Form Patta or resume 2 tsee (6) ALT 322 (SB) 3j0tL (s) ALr 11e J i1 SK,J W.P.No.43723 of 2Ol7 the land by the Revenue authorities must be exercised within €r reasonable time. The relevant potion of the said Judgme nt is extracted as under: "11. Be that as it fraA, the petitioner claims that the land in question rzas assigrued to him in the year 1976, and if according to respondent No.3, the land, as per the conditions of D-Form patta, was required to brirug the land under anltiuation within three Aears from the date of its issuance, and if the petitioner failed to bing the land under cultiuation, within three Aears from the date of its issuance, then respondent No.3, ought to haue issued notice calling upon him to show cause as to whA the D-Form patta should not be cancelled, immediately after expiry of three Aears from the date of issuance of the D-Form patta, and instead of doing tha\ lrc has issued the show cause notice on 77.02.2005 i.e., after lapse of ruearly 30 years. He further submitted that since respondent No.3 issued the show cause ruotice after lapse of nearty 30 Aears, it will not be possible to ascertain as to whether the land was brought under anltiuation utithin three Aears from the date oJ'issuance of D-Form patta or noL 12. This Court in Sekhari Aruna Kumari u. Dist. Collector, Visakhapatnam and Madamaneni Clinnaswamg (died) per LRs. u. Joint Collector, Chittoor, held" that power to cancel the D-Form patta or resume the land, by tlrc reuenue authorities musf be exercised within a reasonable time and that if D-Form patta was to be cancelled., the grounds on which it is sought to be canceued. haue to stated, to enable the assignee to show cause. In the t,... b \ ) L L2 SK,J W.P.No.43723 of 2OtT instant case, the D-Form patta was cancelted. after lapse of 30 gears, and the shout cause notice issued" in that regard., did. not spectfy th.e ground. on u;hictt the DKT uas to be cancelled, and in fact, it is uery clear from the proceedings as well as the record produced, the show cause notice, which led to passing of cancellation of D-Form patta granted in fauour of the petitioner, is at the.instance of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Merelg because respond,ent Nos. 4 and 5 haue been in possession of tLrc land in question since seueral Ltears, it is not open for them to seek cancellation of patta gra.nted to some other person and. see.k assignment of the same in.tLrcir fauour.D (Emphasis added)

12. In the instant case the subject land assignecl land to the assignee in the year, 197s. The respondents have issued the present impugned resumption orders on

19. 12.2016 on the ground of violation of assignment conditions after 4L years. The findings of the above .Iudgments squarely apply to the facts of the instant case as this court categoricatly held that after lapse of several years, the respondents have no authority to resume the lands on flims5r grounds. / / / 13 SK,J W.P.No.43723 of 2017

13. In the instant case, the respondents resumed the landaft':ralapseof4lyears'Inviewofthesarne'the respondents have to initiate proceedings under the Land AcquisitionActandpayCompensationtothepetitioner No.2,a.sheldbythelargerBenchofthisCourtinl.and Acquisi).tionofiicer-cum-ReaenueDiuisionalofficeru' Iulekc,lor Pandu (SuPra' 7 )' L4,Inviewoftheabovefindings,thiswritpetitionis a[owedbysettingasidetheimpugned.orderpassedbythe No.B/ 80241 16 1n Proceedings No.4 \ datedLg,l2.2o|6anda]sotheConsequentialorders passed by the respondent No'3 and 2 in Appeal I I No.D2lll33l2o|7datedo6.a5.2o1'TandRevisionCase No.F27 L6TSf 2O17 dated 25.11.2017 respectively and the responclbnts are directed to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings by following the proced'ure as contemplated I undertheRighttoFairCompensationandTransparency in Larld Acquisition, Rehabilitation arrd Resettlement Act, 2013 for payment of compensation to the petitioner for \ t4 SK,J W.P.No.43723 of 2Ol7 acquired larrd arld complete the same within , four (41 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if the respondents want to acquire the remaining portion of land which ,,vas in possession of the petitioner, they are directed not to interfere with the said land without follovring due procedure. There shall be no order as to 1 5. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stancl closed. \ That the Rule Nisi has been made absotute as stated above. Witness the HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH, on ifrii fiiieAnesday, The Third Day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6 SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Joint Collector, Suryapet, Suryapet District, Telangana State. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Suryapet District, Telangana State 4. The Tahsildar, Suryapet, Suryapet District Telangana State. 5. One CC to SRI 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 MP TJ u , a HIGH COURT DATED:03/09/2025 ..-L 'l S t ? ? JAt.l 2026 ,.t. ORDER WP.No.43723 of 2017 o() t * t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\