Allowed

M/s. Rane Engine Valve Limited, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC16 Dec 2022WP/8327/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging orders that restrained the petitioner from selling land. Finding that revenue records failed to prove the land was assigned to the poor and that assignment pattas were not produced, the Court held the authorities could not presume the land was assigned.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders restraining the petitioner from transferring the land were declared illegal and void, and the writ petition was allowed.

M/s. Rane Engine Valve Limited, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY. THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8327 OF 2008

¶7

Between

¶8

It{/s. Rane Engine Valve Limiteo, Rep. by its General IVlanager / Operations Sri l/ladhu Balan, Aziz Nagar Village, Ivloinabad Manal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, Domalguda, Hyderabad.

¶12

3 The l/andal Revenue Officer, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶13

4 The l/andal Revenue lnspector, Azizltagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

.-RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l,4andamus restraining the respondents from implementing the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in D.No. 925/96, dt. 28-02-1999 which was confirmed in appeal by the first respondent vide Case No. E1l19'10/1999, dt.2212-2007 declare them as illegal and void and consequently set aside the same.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.S.RAVINDRANATH

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FORREVENUE / GP.FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶18

The Gourt made the following ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH}

¶21

WRIT PETITI^{ON No.83 o7 of2OOa}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This writ^{petition is filed for the follou'ing relief:}

¶24

"....to issue^{an Orcler,Directionor a Writ more particularlg} one in the^{natureof Wnt of Mond'amusrestrainingthe respondents} from^{implementing tlLe ctrtlerspassed'by the respondentNo'2 in} D.No.925/96,^{dated28.02-1999tuhich wasconfirmedin oppeal} by the respondent^{No luide case Na DI/ 1910/1999 dated} 22.12.2007,^{d'eclare them as illegut'uoid and consequentlA set} aside the same..."

¶25

2.HeardSris.Ravindranath,LearnedStandingCounselforthe petitioner and^{LearnedGovertrmentPleaderforAssessments} appearing^{for the resPondents.}

¶26

The Learned^{Counsclfor the petitioner submittedthat the} petitioner^{purchasedAc 3 23 GuntasinSurvey No'177l2O' 35} Guntas in^{S.No.17712 7, Ac'2 i4 Guntasin S'No'177/7} '^{Ac 1 25} Guntas in^{S.No.177/8,22Guntas in S'No'177/7'32 Guntas in S'No} t7Tl9, Ac-I.2^{Guntasin Survey No'I771248' and Ac'1'9GqnJas in} S.No. 177/21^{through B Registered Sale Deeds'whichwereregistered} as Document^{Nos.8346/95, 8345/95,8348195'8347 195' 9393195'} 834g/g5,^{8344195arrd' 8344 195 for valuable considerationthe} //

¶27

W.P.No.S327 ol2l;il

¶28

particulars of the respective properties purchased from various owners with the previous Link documents. 4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that before purchasing the property, the petitioner verified the Revenue Records purch:rsed thc property through different registered saie deeds for valuable consideration. All the sale deeds of the petitioner are the registercd documents and no objection was raised by Registering Authority that the lands in question are assigned iands. While it being so, rhe respondent No.3 issued a memo No.B27g9/gg dated 16.09.1995 directing respondent No.4 to ta1<e possession of Iands in Survey No.I7Z /20, tZ7 18, 1.77 /12 and lZ7 /13 at Aziznagar Village by conducting panchanama. Against the same, the petitioner filed the W.P.No.24627 of 1995 before this Court as the said lands are not assigned lands and the said deed was disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeai under Act. The petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.2 and the same was rejected on 28.02.1999. Whereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent No. I and filed Writ petition and the same was dismissed on 22.12..2OO7. pending appeal ploceedings, the tlrqtter was referred to Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District on 04.10.1996 with a direction to clarify the nature of land. The officer uide his letter No.3/27 221 396 d,ated, 22.1t.1996 informed thqt "as per the Classer Akar Land Register for the year l35g Fasli

¶29

¶30

sK, / t'.P.No.8327 of2008

¶31

¶32

that the Survey No.177 was subdivided^into 39^{pots and also} mentioned in the remark column in^{WasulBaqui Sethwar in Urdu} that the lands in dispute lie in between^{Himayatsagar and Aziznagar} Villages and later included in Aziznagar^{Village and} that^{the lands} are Patta Lands". The Learned Counsel submits that^respondents are failed to consider the communication^of the^{MandalRevenue} Officer, Moinabad wherein it has been^stated that,^{"there is no} record available in this office about^{assignments of this particular} land to any person, because the^names of^{pattadarsappearedin} Revenue Records right from 1954-55".

¶33

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted^that the respondents have failed to appreciate^{the ratio laid down in the} judgment reported in 1996 (4) ALD 572 (DB) Nimmagadda Rama Devi Vs District Coilector which held on analysis^{of the provisionsof} the Act that only where there is a condition^{of non alienation while} assigning the lands or if the land^{is assigned is under the provisions} of the AP Lands Reforms (Ceiling of Agriculture^{Holdings) Act 1973 it} would be "assigned land" within the meaning of the Act,^{where the} agsignmeht ris without any such condition as to non alienation it would not be assigned land under the Act and it has no application. 6i The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that tha\ even in a case^where assigned land is allotted under Laoni Rules of 1950 the^{DivisionBenchheid} in^{1977 (4) ALD} 294^{that the}

¶34

W.|.Na.8327 ol21oi\

¶35

condition with regards to non alienation has got to be incorporated before the said lands can be claimed as assigned lands under Act. Therefore it is submitted that it is well established that a condition of non alienability is the criteria under the Act or under 1960 Rules to identify whether a particular land is an assigned land or not. The perusai of the orders of the rcspondent Nos. 1 and 2 would reveal that the important condition of alienability or non-aiienability was not even taken note of. Therefore it is submitted that the hndings of the respondent Nos.l and 2 are based on mere surmise and conjecture. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that before any land is claimed as assigned land by the Respondents and to draw such a presumption the respondents must establish the date of assignment and Lhc contemporaneous state of the Rules under which assignment was made. All these are essentially questions of fact and must first be put to the persons aggrieved so as to afford him a reasonable opportunity to explain or defend the possession, and ownership of the land is concerned which is a valuable property right, in the absence of which the Respondents are very casual in approach. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the following judgments of this Court, requested this court to allow the u,rit peLition.

¶36

) s(, i lN.P.No.8327 af 2008

¶37

¶38

i) D(].sari Naraganq. Rq.o and Others Vs. Dputg Collector q.nd Mq.ndq.l Revenue OfJicer and. Others reported in MANU/AP/13O5/2OO6, A.P. Assigned. Lo.nd.s (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 19771

¶39

ii) G.V.K.Rqm(r Rao^q.nd. Another Vs. Bdkelite Hglq.m Emplouees Cooperatiue. House Building Societg, Ilgdetabdd reported in 1997 (4) ALD 294'

¶40

iii) Ni'nmo.gaddd Ro.rn(r Deui and Orhers^ys. The District Collector, Krishno. and Another reported. in 1996 (q ALf 325 (D.8.)'

¶41

Learned Government Pleader for the

¶42

Assignments submits that as per the rccords the Sy.No. 177, admeasuring a total extent of Ac.162.08 Guntas of Aziznagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, was originally classified as Govt. Land (Kotha Kancha Sarkari). As per the entries in the pahanies of the Village from 1982-83 it is recorded as Laoni patta land. The said land was divided into 39 sub divisions. Out of ',vhich 38 sub divisions were allotted to the landless poor persons, Sy.No. 177 l7 adrneasuring an extent of Ac.3.28 Guntas was assigned to Sri Manjugalla Venkaiah, Sy.No.177/8, Extent Ac.3.08 Guntas was assigned to Sri Antharam Danaiah, Sy.No. 177/9, trxtent Ac.3.32 Gun[as was assigned to Sri Gunti Laxmaiah, Sy.No. 177/2O, Extent Ac.3.23 cuntas was assigned to Sri Munjaqalla Papaiah,. Sy No t77 l2l, Extent Ac.3.30 Guntas was assigned to Sri Munjagalla Aelaiah. The Gram Palchayat has issued no objection certificate for construction of the factory in the said survey numbers and the A.p. pollution Board

¶43

I zoro 1+y alr oss

¶44

'^tgst 151^{eto z9t}

¶45

'^{rsqo(a) at-r:zs (oe)}

¶46

¶47

issued a clearance^{certificate forS-v.No. 177} 17,^{a,9 and 2O' In this} connection it is^{submitted that the Gram Panchayat is not having} any^{jurisdictionover the GovernmentLands for grant of NOC to} construct the^{factory. The Gram PanchayatofAzizrlagat Vtllage} without veri$ring the^{title of the land issued NOC'} 9. The Learned Government^{Pleaderfor Assignments further} submitted that from^{1995 to titl datcthe Revenue Records showthat} the said survey^{numbers are cleissifiedas assigned lands'As per} Section 3(2) of the^{A.P.AssignedLands, no iandless poor person shall} transfer any assigned^{land and no personshali acquire anyassigned} land either by^{purchase gift, leasemortgage exchangeor otherwise'} The petitioner^{herein has purchasedthe assigned lands, whichis in} violation of the^{provisionsof the A.P.AssignedLands(POT) Act,7977'}

¶48

At the time^{ofhearing, this Courl directedthe karned} Government^{Pleader forAssignmcnts toproducetherecords} pertaining to the impugnecl^{proceedings and directed to produce the} assignment pattas issued^{to the landless poor persons in Sy'No'177'} The Learned Government^{Pleader producedthe recordsand the} records reveal that the^{AssislantDirectorof S&LNS, RangaReddy} District issued a letter in^{Rc.No.G3l2722} /96^{dated 22'71'1996} stated that as per the Classer^{Akar register the Sy'No'177/1 to 38} lands and Pote 39 is^{porampoke. In the Sethwar ald} Pt*" ".,a.

¶49

¶50

¶51

5K/ M P.N.,.3j2/ o/2008

¶52

¶53

Wasool Baqui copies prepared in the year 1961 the Sy.No. 177/ 1 to 39 shown as patta lands.

¶54

The letter of the Mandal Revenue Officer in Lr.No.B/3180/95 dated 21.07.1997 addressed to the District Collector that "I have verified the pahanies from the year 1954-55 (Khasras) rvherein it is recorded that the Survey y.No. 177 18, 12, 13 and 20 are as Kothakancha patta, except the survey number 177 li &" 177 139 which are recorded as sarkari porampoke. These details are carried upto 1981-82 pahani. And all of a sudden in the year 1982-83 it is recorded as Loani patta against each survey numbcr^(Thc extracts are submitted for perusal). The reasons for writing as Loani^patta are not known. There is no record available in this oflice about assignment of this particular land to any person, because the names of pattadars are appeared in Revenue Records right from 1954 55'. But the respondents are unable to produce the assignment^pattas issued to the landless poor persons.

¶55

After hearing both sides and veriffing the original records, this Court is of the considered view that as per the letters of the Assistant^I Directo!', S&SLN,' dated^, 22.t1.1996 and the then Tahsildar, Moinabad Mandal dated 21.07.1997 clearly shows that there is no record available about the assignment of land to the landless poor persons in Sy.No. 177 of Azeeznagar Village and the concerned authorities reported that the said land is patta land

¶56

¶57

In view of the same,^{theauthorities basing onthe} presumptions passed impugned^{orders and the rcvenue records from} 1995 cannot be taken^{into account. This Court time and againheld} that there shall be^{conditionof non-alienation in the Assignment} patta. The respondcnts^{failed to producethc assignmentpattas and} the question of^{proceedings under A.P.AssignedLands (POT) Act,} 1977 does not arise.^{The judgement relied by thc Learned Counsel} for the petitioner^{apply to the instant case.}

¶58

¶59

In view of the same,^{this Writ Petitionis liable to be allowed'}

¶60

Accordingly, allowed.^{There shall no order as to costs'}

¶61

Miscellaneous^{applications, pendingif arry, shall stand closed'}

¶62

That Rule^{Nisi has been made absolute as above}

¶63

Witness^{the Hon'ble the ChiefJustice UJJAL BHUYAN' on this Ftiday'the} Sixteenth^{dayof December' Two Thousand and Twenty Two'}

¶64

SD/.N.SRIHARI

¶65

ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY// c+D.'-

¶66

SECTION^OFFICER

¶67

To 1 The District Collector'^{RangaReddYDistrict'} 2' +iiE He#;;;^{tri'vi;io;al offic;;.ci-l;*il'D,VisionRansa Reddv District'} Domalquda,^Hyderabad'

¶68

3 iXJ'Ni;il;i^{nJJ"nrLotti""'. Mornabad MandalRansa,ReddvDrstrict} 4 +i.rE il;il;i H"u"nr"^{tnspecioi, nzznagar'Ranga.Redd.yDtstricl-} ' 5 +;:,'6e;;^{ip'ioCAssro"r'rrvirNrs'Hisn couit for the state of relansana}

¶69