Dismissed

Secy Boduppal and Changincharla Plot O.Asn v. Dt Collector and 141 Others.

Telangana HC19 Jun 2013AS/499/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a suit for declaration of title and possession of assigned land. Court held that title could not be declared as prohibited alienation was not disproven and possession claim was untenable due to Government resumption proceedings initiated during pendency.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; no declaration of title or recovery of possession granted; members directed to participate in pending Government resumption proceedings.

Secy Boduppal and Changincharla Plot O.Asn Vs Dt… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶2

APPEAL SUIT No.499 of 1997

¶3

JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

The sole plaintiff in O.S.No.469 of 1987 on the file of the I-Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, is the appellant. It is an Association comprising of the persons who purchased plots of land in Sy.No.63/2 of Boduppal village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for recovery of Rs.20,000/- as damages. It was filed not only against the Government of A.P. and its officials of Revenue Department, but also against 139 private individuals, who are impleaded as defendants 4 to 142.

¶5

The appellant pleaded that the respondents 4 to 142 or their ancestors were assigned different extents of land in the survey number referred to above by the Government of A.P. in the year 1959 and, on finding that the lands are not cultivable, the assignees have sold the respective lands through different sale deeds in the year 1967. They stated that the purchases were made only after thorough verification of the records and on clearance being given by the various authorities. According to them, the layout was also sanctioned.

¶6

The appellant pleaded that in the recent past, the land has acquired value and, taking advantage of the same, the respondents 4 to 142 started laying claim upon it. When an effort was made by the purchasers or persons claiming through them, law and order situation

¶7

has arisen and proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C were initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, the 2^nd respondent herein. It was also alleged that the respondents 4 to 142 encroached upon the land taking advantage of the order passed by the 2^nd respondent while closing the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. With this and other allegations, they prayed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits.

¶8

Respondents 1 to 3 filed a written statement. They stated that the land was initially assigned in the year 1957 in favour of certain persons, subject to the condition that they shall form a Co-operative Farming Society and, on finding that the society was not formed, the Government accorded permission in the year 1959 for assignment of land in favour of individual members. They submitted that the assignees did not bring the land under cultivation and, on the other hand, either have obtained permissions to layout the land or for construction of houses or have alienated the land in favour of the third parties. The Joint Collector is said to have issued notice under Section 163-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act of 1317 Fasli (for short ‘the Revenue Act’) and, ultimately, passed the orders of cancellation of pattas. They submitted that once the lands are assigned subject to the condition of non-alienation, any purchase made by the members of the appellant Association does not confer a title.

¶9

Some of the respondents 4 to 142 have also filed a written statement taking the plea that the so called purchase made by the members of the appellant Association are not under law and opposed the facts. They pleaded that the persons who were interested in grabbing the land have fraudulently obtained signatures from the

¶10

original assignees.

¶11

The trial Court dismissed the suit, through judgment dated 22.08.1996.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶13

The trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:

¶14

“1. Whether the assignment of the suit land by the Government to the Harizans of Boduppal in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.1302 (Revenue) dated 06.07.1956 prohibited alienation of the assigned land?

¶15

2. Whether the alienation of the suit land by the assignees defendants 4 to 96 in favour of defendants 97 to 142 is void ?

¶16

3. Whether the action of defendants 1 to 3 in dispossessing the members of the plaintiff association of the suit property is illegal?

¶17

4. Whether the members of the plaintiffs have no valid title to the suit property?

¶18

5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

¶19

6. Whether the plaintiff association is entitled for declaration and possession as prayed for?

¶20

7. To what relief?”

¶21

The Secretary of the appellant association deposed as PW.1. He filed Exs.A1 to A59. Most of which are sale deeds of the year 1967. On behalf of the respondents, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was filed.

¶22

In view of the submissions made on behalf of the respective counsel, the following points arise for consideration:

¶23

(a) Whether the assignments made in favour of the vendors of the members of the appellant association do not contain any clause prohibiting alienation?

¶24

(b) Whether the appellant is entitled to seek the relief of recovery of possession, in view of the fact that the respondents 1 and 2 have initiated steps for resumption of land on the ground that the assignees have violated the conditions of assignment?

¶25

It is a matter of record that the members of the appellant Association purchased the land from the assignees. Though it is urged across the bar that the assignments were made under the lavoni Rules and there do not exist any conditions prohibiting alienation, the same is not substantiated through any oral or documentary evidence. Neither any order of assignment was filed nor the original assignee was examined. The trial Court was left with no alternative, except to discuss the matter in accordance with the provisions of law. The prohibition contained under Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) was taken into account. The purport of Section 3 of the Act is that the transfer of any land assigned in favour of a landless could be null and void. Hardly, any effort was made by the appellant to prove that the provisions of the Act apply to the assignment in question or that the exceptions carved out under Section 3 of the Act apply to the purchasers. In view of the specific prohibition contained under the Act, the appellant could have got the relief if only it was established that the assignment made in favour of the transferors under various sale deeds did not contain any clause prohibiting alienation. As observed earlier, no such effort was made and the relief of declaration of title could not have been granted,

¶26

that too in respect of the lands covered by different sale deeds executed in favour of quite a large number of persons. There is serious impediment for an Association to claim a relief of this nature in favour of its members. Each transaction is separate and unless the corresponding order of assignment was placed before the trial Court, it is not at all possible to pronounce about it. Hence, the 1^st point is answered against the appellant.

¶27

The relief of recovery of possession was also claimed. The appellant is not clear as to whether it is the Government or the private respondents that are in possession of the land. Be that as it may, during the pendency of the appeal, the respondents 1 and 2 initiated proceedings for resumption of the land in exercise of power under Section 166-B of the Revenue Act. The aggrieved persons filed a writ petition and separate orders were passed in it today itself. The possession of the property in the hands of the original assignees or their legal representatives itself has become so fluid that as of now, not only the order of resumption was passed by the Joint Collector, but also the same was affirmed by the appellate authority. In this scenario, the relief of recovery of possession cannot be granted.

¶28

Hence, the appeal is dismissed. It is, however, directed that it shall be open to the members of the appellant to participate in the proceedings that may be initiated by the Government in respect of the land under relevant provisions of law and, depending upon the outcome thereof, to pursue their further remedies. The findings recorded by the trial Court in the judgment under appeal shall not be treated as final in this regard.

¶29

The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall

¶30

stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

_____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J

¶32

________________ S.V.BHATT,J

¶33

19.06.2013 v v

Secy Boduppal and Changincharla Plot O.Asn v. Dt Collector and 141 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Secy Boduppal and Changincharla Plot O.Asn v. Dt Collector and 141 Others.

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

M/s. Central Roadlines Corporation Vs M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Smt. Sita Bai Vs The South Indian Bank Ltd.

M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Vs Central Road Lines Corporation

Mysagalla balamma Vs Governament of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Bulchand and Company, partnership Firm, Vs Khamrunnisa Begum (died) as per L.Rs. 2 to 9 herein

M/s. Bulchand and Company, partnership Firm, Vs Syed Yahya (died) as per L.Rs. 2 to 8 herein