Allowed

M.A. Sami Khan, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC10 Feb 2009WP/21428/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a writ petition setting aside an order directing resumption of land under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977, relying on a prior Division Bench judgment that the Act does not apply to the lands in question.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, the impugned proceedings were set aside, and the revision filed by the petitioners was held to abate.

M.A. Sami Khan, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.21428 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners challenge the order, dated 30.04.2005, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, the second respondent herein, in an appeal filed by them under Section 4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). The appeal arose out of an order, dated 15.02.2003, passed by the Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, the third respondent herein, in exercise of the power under Section 4 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act, directing resumption of an extent of Acs.3.24 guntas of land in Survey No.37 and Acs.9.14 cents of land in Survey No.38/1 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District alleging that the said lands were transferred in contravention of the provisions of the Act.

¶5

Initially, the petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition against the order, dated 15.02.2002. The writ petition was disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners herein to avail the remedy of appeal. The appeal was rejected, through the impugned order. The petitioners contend that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the lands in question, since they were assigned under a different set of norms and rules. They placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court reported in letter taken up as writ petition Vs. Collector & District

¶6

Magistrate^[1] .

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition deserves to be allowed in view of the judgment referred to above.

¶8

The learned Government Pleader for Assignments submits that the petitioners have availed the remedy of revision before the Joint Collector and the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶9

It is true that the petitioners have availed the remedy of revision to the Joint Collector against the order, dated 30.04.2005, passed by the second respondent. The fact, however, remains that identical matters were dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment referred to above. Extensive discussion was undertaken touching mostly upon the nature and character of the land that was sought to be resumed. The batch of writ petitions, which is the subject matter of the judgment, was also filed against the orders of the appellate authority, which are in identical terms. The Division Bench categorically held that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the lands covered by the impugned orders. The mere fact that the petitioners availed the remedy of revision hardly makes any difference, once the matter has assumed finality in the form of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside following the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above. The revision filed by the petitioners shall abate. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

L.NARASIMHA

¶11

REDDY,J Dt:09.02.2009

¶12

kdl

¶13

2008(5) ALT 131

M.A. Sami Khan, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.A. Sami Khan, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kilari Ramachandranaidu, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Chintareddy Madhusudhan Reddy, Vs Government of A.P.

T. Shekar Reddy, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator

Smt.Guda Malathi Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Bhagyanagar Investment and Trading PVt., Ltd., Plot No. 18, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar mandal

S.G. Ahmed Quadri Vs The Dist. Collector