Allowed

Onteru Manemma, v. The District Collector, Warangal

Telangana HC15 Sept 2014WP/1380/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging an order cancelling land allotments to Schedule Caste beneficiaries under a Land Purchase Scheme. The court held the order unsustainable because the reasons for cancellation differed from those in the prior show-cause notice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders issued by the second respondent vide proceedings Rc.A/753/04 dated 16.01.2006 are set aside. Respondents are at liberty to issue fresh show cause notices and allow opportunity of b

Onteru Manemma, Vs The District Collector, Warangal — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.1380 of 2006

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order issued by the second respondent vide proceedings Rc.A/753/04 dated 16.01.2006.

¶4

2. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Metheunta Sudheir, learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶5

3. According to the petitioners, they are the residents of Penchakal pet village, Atmakur Mandal, Warangal District and they belong to schedule caste community. The second respondent herein introduced a scheme called “Land Purchase Scheme” for allotment of the land to the eligible schedule caste agricultural women and in the said scheme the respondents identified the petitioners as beneficiaries and submitted proposals for purchase of the land in Sy.Nos.131/2m 136/A3m 137/B3, 137, 145, 286, 267, 182, 268, 188, 109, 129, 29, 30, 209, 269, 151, 145, 82, 352, 368 and 35. After purchasing the said land, the second respondent herein divided the said land into plots of Ac.1-00 gts each and thereafter registered the same in favour of the petitioners herein in the month of April and June 2002. As per the petitioners herein since the date of delivery of possession to them, they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. It is also their case that they have mortgaged the land by depositing the title deeds in the Corporation Bank and other financial institutions and borrowed the amounts for cultivation of the lands. It is also pleaded by the petitioners herein that these lands are the only source of their livelihood.

¶6

4. The second respondent herein issued notice in Rc.No.A/753/2005

¶7

dated 12.07.2005, asking the petitioners herein to show-cause as to why the pattas should not be cancelled alleging benami transactions.

¶8

5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners herein did not submit any explanation for the said show cause notice. Subsequently, vide notice in Rc.No.A/753/2005 dated 12.07.2005 the petitioners herein were once again asked to submit explanation within three days while indicating that the allotments would be cancelled. Subsequently, by virtue of the proceedings in Rc. Rc.No.A/753/2005 dated 12.07.2005, the Executive Director, of the second respondent herein informed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Atmakur that the District Collector/President of the District Schedule Caste Service Cooperative Society Limited wanted to cancel the allotments made in favour of the petitioners herein and further informed that a letter was addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Narsampet for cancellation of the registered sale deeds executed earlier in favour of the petitioners herein.

¶9

6. In the above background, the present writ petition came to be filed and this Court while ordering Rule Nisi on 27.01.2006 granted interim stay as prayed for and the said interim order is still subsisting as on date.

¶10

7. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, initially the second respondent herein filed a counter as long back as on 30.10.2006 and subsequently WVMP.No.2752/2013 has been filed supported by a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated that in the light of the newspapers reports, the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of A.P. Schedule Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, directed the Society to submit a detailed report on the allegations against the distribution of land under the land purchase scheme and the then Executive Director of the Schedule Caste Society along with the Mandal Revenue officer, Atmakur convened a Grama Sabha in the village on 15.03.2006 and 07.06.2005 and the petitioners herein did not submit their objections for

¶11

the show-cause notice which prompted the second respondent herein to pass the impugned order.

¶12

8. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein that since the scheme under which the respondents herein allotted the lands to the petitioners is a beneficial scheme, keeping in view the interest of the schedule caste women, the respondents are not justified in cancelling the allotments already made after due inspection pursuant to the thorough enquiry. It is also submitted that there is absolutely no basis for the respondents to presume the benami transaction. It is further stated that even though in the show cause notice dated 12.07.2005 and 07.10.2005 the second respondent alleged benami transaction, but in the impugned order the second respondent herein assigned other reasons for cancellation. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the request made by the second respondent to the Sub-Registrar Narsampet, for cancellation of the registered sale deeds is also impermissible under law.

¶13

9. Per contra, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents society that since the petitioners herein did not offer any explanation for the show cause notice issued by the second respondent, the petitioners herein are not entitled for any sympathy from this Court and since the reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioners and as there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned proceedings, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitioners herein.

¶14

10. The material available on record discloses that only after identifying the petitioners herein as beneficiaries under the scheme allotments were made in favour of the petitioners herein in 2002 and thereafter sale deeds were also executed in their favour. The possession and enjoyment of the petitioners is also not in dispute. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners the allegation on the petitioners herein in the show cause notices is in respect of benami

¶15

transaction, but coming to the impugned order the second respondent assigned other reasons for cancellation such as non-residency, marital status and employment status. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned by the second respondent in the impugned order of cancellation, as mentioned supra, cannot be the basis for the second respondent to issue the impugned order since the said reasons were admittedly not assigned by the second respondent in the show cause notices referred to above. This Court as long back as on 27.01.2006 granted interim stay and till date the said interim order is subsisting and there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners herein in respect of the subject lands as on today.

¶16

11. In view of the said aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law.

¶17

12. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders issued by the second respondent vide proceedings Rc.A/753/04 dated 16.01.2006 are set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate proceedings afresh if they choose to do so after issuing fresh show cause notices and after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners herein. As a As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶18

_______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶19

Date:15.09.2014 grk

¶20

291

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.1380 of 2006

¶23

Date : 15.09.2014

¶24

grk

¶25

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.1380 of 2006

¶26

Date : 15-09-2014

¶27

Between:

¶28

Onteru Manemma w/o Mallaiah, aged About 50 years, Occ: Agriculture and others.

¶29

… Petitioners

¶30

And

¶31

The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District and three others.

¶32

… Respondents

Onteru Manemma, v. The District Collector, Warangal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Onteru Manemma, v. The District Collector, Warangal

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

Shabir Bhai Vs The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Korupolu Appala Naidu, Vs The District Collector

Mohd. Ghouse, Vs The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary

Madireddy Ram Reddy Vs Madireddy laxmamma

Karakapatla Ramesh, Vs Sri I. Samuel Ananda Kumar, I.A.S.

Vishwanadhula Raju Bai , Radha Bai Vs Union of India., rep.by its Deputy Secretary,Ministry