Dismissed

Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 3 Others v. Gpa Holder, Dr. Pasupaleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable

Telangana HC5 Jul 2022WA/1328/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ appeal filed by revenue officials against a Single Judge order that quashed an order for resumption of land. The bench held there was no error in the lower view that conditions on land sold for market value are void and the appeal failed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; no costs awarded to the appellants.

Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 3 Others Vs Gpa… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^UJJALBHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1328 OF 2014

¶6

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent^{preferred against the order} dated 24.06.2014 in W.P.No.28980 of 2013 on the^{file of the High Court.}

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary,^{RevenueDepadment'} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶9

The Tahsildar, Mulugu l\rlandal, Medak District.

¶10

Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet Revenue^{Division, Medak District.}

¶11

The District Collector, IVedak District at Sangareddy.

¶12

...Appellants

¶13

AND

¶14

Dr. Pasupaleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable^{Trust, Chinnathimmapur,} Ii,4ulugu Mandal, Medak District, rep. by its GPA Holder of its^{ManagingTruste-e,} Syediaved, Sio. Late S.G. tvlohiuddin, aged about^{58 years, Occ: Business. Fl/o.} Piot No.1, Rama Colony, Bolarum Bazar, Secunderabad^{- 500 010.}

¶15

...Respondent

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2014(W AMP. NO: 3256 OF 2014)

¶17

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 pleasedto} suspend the operation of the Order dated 24.06.2014^{passed in WP No.28980of} 2013, pending disposal of main appeal.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Betwee n:

¶20

Dr. Pasupaleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust, Chinnathimmapur, lVulugu Mandal, Iriledak District, rep. by its GPA Holder of its trlanaging Trustee, Syed Javed, S/o. Late S.G. I,4ohiuddin, aged about 58^years, Occ: Business.^R/o. Plot No.1, Rama Colony, Bolarum Bazar, Secunderabad - 500 010.

¶21

... Petitioner/Responde nt in W.A.No.1328/2014

¶22

AND

¶23

1 The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Rep. by its Prlncipal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Tahsildar, fVlulugu lV'landal, Medak District.

¶24

ll2ll

¶25

Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Siddipet Revenue Division, Medak District'}

¶26

The District Collector,^{Medak District at Sangareddy.}

¶27

...ResPondents/APPellantsⁱⁿ W.A.No.1328/20'14

¶28

Petition under Section^{151 cPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated ln} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High courtmaybe pleasedto} expedite the hearing^{of the proceedings in present writ Appeal No 1328i2014 and} fix an early date.

¶29

Counsel for the Appellants:^{SRI PARSAANANTH NAGESHWARRAO,} GP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent:^{SRI TOGITI NAGENDER}

¶31

The Court delivered the^{following: JUDGMENT}

¶32

H N'B B

¶33

AND

¶34

BLE NT NAND W.A.No. 1328 of 2014

¶35

I UDGMENT, /Per^thc Hon'bh^theChieJ lrrtiz^{rJjjal Bhulan)}

¶36

Heard Mr. Pana Ananth Nageshwar Rao, leamed Govemment Pleader for assignment, and N{r. T.Nagender, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶37

Respondent as the petitioner had preferred the related writ petition being WP.No.2898O of 2013 assailing the legaliry and validity of the order dated t9.01.2012, passed by the Tahsildar of Mtrlugu Mandal.

¶38

l By the aforesaid order, Tahsildar had directed resumption of the land granted to the respondent on the ground that he had violated the condition of grant.^lff{hen respondent preferred appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the appeal^was dismissed and the order of resumption s/as alfirmed^uide order dated 3 1.A8.20L3.

::2::

\ \ I

These two orden dated 19.01.2012 and 31.C8.2018 came to be challenged bythe respondent in the related writ petition.

¶44

Appellants, u.'ho were the respondents in the writ petition, had f iled counter- aff idavit.

¶45

Leamed Single Judge, after hearing both the sides, allowed the writ peririon in the following mannen

¶46

"It is evident from the undisputed facts, panicularly, the fact that the petitioner purchased the aforesaid land on payrnent of market value from the Govemment, as per order of the Collector dated 08.02.2001, referred to above, itself would estabiish that on such purchase the petitioner became the owner of the said land and the said land ceases to be a Govemment land or an assignable land and consequently, no action could have been initiated by the Talsildar under the AP. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Acr,1977 (forshon'the Act). 7 . FLving sold the land on paymenr of market value, the Government could not have placed anv condition restricting rhe enjoyment of the land bythe said o1,ncr, as any such condition or restriction in such a sale would c.learly be void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Propeny Act. For the sake of convenience, the aforesaid provision is extracted hereunder:

¶47

" 10. C-onditions restr:rinrng alienation: - W'here plopefiy is transferred^subject to^{a conditionor} Iimitation absolutely restraining the^{transferee or} any pe6on claiming under^his from^{paning with or} disposing of his interest in^{the properry, the} condition or limitation^{is void, except in the case of} a lease where the condition^{is for the benefit of the} lessor or those claiming under^him:

¶48

Provided that property may be ransferred to or for the benefit of^a. woman^{(not beinga} Hindu, Mohammaden or Buddhist), so that^she shall not have^power during^{her marriageto transfer} or charge the same or her beneficial^interest therein."

¶49

¶50

It is well settled, therefore, that^{conditionsof such} nature, which restrict the enjoyment of the^{land, as an} owner, amor.nt to clog on ownerchip^{and is void in law. I} aq therefore, unable to appreciate as to^{how thesecond} respondent could take up^{proceedingsfor resumptionof} the same land, which was sold to the^petitioneron pa).Tnent of market value in the purported^{exercise under} the Act. Neither the second respondent^{nor the third} respondent have appreciated the said aspect. It is evident from the extracted ponion of the repon of the^Tahsildar, as above, that the petitioner being the righdul^{owner of} the land was within the contemplation of the^Talsildar himself. However, still he proceeded to initiate^the impugned acdon for resumption of land x if the land continues to be Govemment assigned land and that^the petitioner has violated the conditions of assignment.

¶51

¶52

Though the counter affidavit is filed on behalJ of the official respondents^justifying their action, the aloresaid aspect remains trncontravened and turanswered. In rny view, therefore, both the orden, which are questioned in this writ petition, are clearly without^jurbdiction for the reasons stated above and are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Respondents 2 and 3 shall restore the land to the petitioner fonhwith.

¶53

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, sha11 smnd closed. There sha1l be no order as to costs."

¶54

Thus, leamed Single Judge noted that respondent had purchased the subject land on pa).rnent of market value from the Govemment. On such purchase, respondent became the owner of the subject land whereafter, the same ceased to be a Govemment land or an assignable land. Flaving sold the land on palrnent ol market value, the Govemment could not have placed any condition restricting the enjol,rnent of the land by the land owner.

¶55

1We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the leamed Singie Judge. No case for interference is made out.

¶56

¶57

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶58

¶59

¶60

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

¶61

dismissed.

¶62

! SD/.CH.VE N KATESWARU^LU DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// v/ SECTION OFFICER

¶63

To,

¶64

1 Two CCs to GP for Assignment, High Court for the State of^{Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT] 2. One CC to Sri Togiti Nagender, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CD Copies 4. One Spare Copy CHR GJ Ph"---

¶65

¶66

¶67

HIGH COURT DATED:0510712022

¶68

Et*e -r'?---:=. srAle a
(
t: ,i-r
2 5 JUL 2[22
t)
.ri:

¶69

JUDGMENT

¶70

W.A.No.1328 of 2014

¶71

DISMISSING THE WRIT^APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

(k I i
{)-
{14
n
<br>

Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 3 Others v. Gpa Holder, Dr. Pasupaleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 3 Others v. Gpa Holder, Dr. Pasupaleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

News Item published Vs State of Telangana

Kodicherla Anjalaiah and 15 others Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

Butham Vamshikrishna Vs State of Telangana and 4 others

Cabinet Secretary, Union of India, New Delhi and Another Vs G.Suryanarayana Reddy, Hyd and 2 Others

M/s. Venkata Sai Potteries (P) Limited Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and 3 Others

M/s. BrahMos Aerospace Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct) (Stu) - II