Remanded

K.Lal Kishore v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Telangana HC19 Apr 2023WP/22759/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging land resumption orders. In the first case, the petition was set aside as it was identical to a previous disposed suit. In the second, the proceedings were quashed due to lack of mandatory notice to occupants.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings set aside; matters remanded to concerned authorities to issue appropriate orders after notice and personal hearing.

K.Lal Kishore Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

I I I i

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD . (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF^APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR}

¶7

WRlT PETITION NO: 22759 OF²⁰⁰⁹

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Lal Kishore, S/o. K. Appa Rao^{ProfessorRlo-H-no2-2-64718/8Central} Excise colony, Hyderabad

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by^{its Secretary, Revenue(Assignment),} Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad

¶13

2 The District Collector, Ranga^{Reddy Districtat, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad}

¶14

The Revenue Divisional^{Officer, Ranga ReddyEast, Division} '^{At Goshamahal,} Hyderabad

¶15

The Tahsildar,^{(Formerly Mandal Revenue officer),QutbullapurMandal,} Qutubullapur, Ranga^{Reddy District}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ol^{lhe constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances statedⁱⁿ the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or^{anyother appropriate writdeclaringthat} the allotmenvtransfer of^{lands effected under section 14(1)(2)of the AP Land} Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural^{Holdings) Act, '1973' especially after the} contigency contained in^{section 14(2) ot the Act is not governedby the} provisions contained in AP Assigned Lands^{(Prohibition of Transfers) Act,'t977 or} alternatively declare that the^{resumption mechanism in 1973Act cannotbe} exercised by the 1st respondent^{involvingthe provisions of the 1977Act and} consequently set aside^{the impugned resumption ordersin File No.A/3511/2005} dated 6.1.2007 of the^{4th respondent and consequentlydirect the respondents} not to interfere with the^{possession and enjoymentof the plots belongingto the} petitioners situated in sY.Nos.5l and^{52t1 of Bachupallyvillage,Qutubullapur} Mandal, Ranga ReddY^District.

¶18

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(V\ PMP. NO 29546^{0F 2009)}

¶20

Pet tton Llnder S,lclion 151 CPC^{prayinglhat in :he cir(ir lmstancesstated} in the affidavrt filed rrsupport of^{the petition,the High co-rrt tnay be pleasedto} grant stay of disposl e:,si,ln o{ the^{petitioner fromthe plolN :183 admeasuring} )00 sq.yards rn Sy.N rs⁵¹¹¹¹ situated^{at Bachupally vrllage,QLrt bu lapur lirlandal.} Ranga Reddv Dlstricl^{p'lnding disposal of the writ petition}

¶21

LA- NO: 1OF 2017 LU VMP.^{NO: 4071 OF20171}

¶22

Between:

¶23

The State of Ar lhra Pradesh,^{rep.by its Secretary,Revenrre(As;signment).} Department, S€ cretariat, Hyderabad

¶24

The District Ool er;tor, Ranga^{Reddy District at, Lakdikapoo,Hyrierabad}

¶25

The Revenue I- visronal Officer,^{RangaReddy East, Divist'ln, At Goshamahal.} Hyderabad

¶26

4 The Tahs ldar, Fornterly Mandal Revenue officer),^{Qulbtrllzrl'ur14andal} Qutubullapur.^F ar'ga Reddy^District

¶27

...PETITIONEFIS/RESPONDENTS

¶28

AND

¶29

K Lal Kishore S;/o. K. Appa Rao Professor^{R/o H.nc.ll'll-627l8/BCentral} Excise colony, I ly,lerabad

¶30

...RESPONDI:iITSTPETITIONER

¶31

Petition undr-.r Se:ctton 151 CPC^praying that^{in the c r:ltmsances slated} in the affidavit filecJ^I I support of the^{petition,the HighCou 1 mat/be pleased} vacate the interim^,:rr ers dated 08-02-2017^{passedin WP No.375€of 2017 and} dismiss the writ^{petrtir n.}

¶32

Counsel for the Petiti :ner: SRI I.V.RADHAKRISHNA^MURTHY

¶33

Counsel for the Resp rndent No.1: GP^{FORASSIGNMENT}

¶34

Counsel for the Resp rndent Nos.2 to^{4: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶35

The Court made the f rllowing: ORDER

¶36

¶37

¶38

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶39

WRIT PETITION No.22759 OF 2OO9

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

Heard learncd counsel for thc pe titioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignmcnt.

¶42

'2. When the matter is tal<en up for consideration, it is brought to the notice oi this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that under similar circumstances rn Writ Pctition No.'2766 of 2009, dated 06.O4.2021, ttre lcarnetl Singlc Juclgc of this Court allowed the said Wlit Petition b).sctting aside thc very same irnpugned order, which is impugned in this Writ Petition that is resumption order passed in file No.A/351i/20O5, dated 06.0I.2007 , and remanded the rnatter back for consideration afresh.

¶43

The said submission made by th'e learrred counsel for the petitioner is not disputed by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment and subrnitted that this Writ Petition can also be disposed of in the same lines as that ol the orders passed in Writ Petition No.2766 of 2OO9, dated 06.04.20'21 .

¶44

In the light oI the above, and for the reasons alike in the said Writ Petition, this Writ Petitior-r is also disposed of and the

¶45

¶46

i I J

¶47

rn)lrr-lqne(l or( cr iri set itsidc rcntanding thc Inaltr:t^lrac< to lllc atrtlroriti<:s co rccrncd. u'iro in turtt shall put ttre 1te t iirrlt r^hcrcilt orr rrotic,: an( l)asis appropriatc orders, in act:orditlrc:^u'irhlilrv, aftcr zLllc,rdinl I inr zrn opportur-ritv of submitting^{hir; r:xpLan:rtior.t} and an.)ppor Lr'ril-y ol pcrsonal hcaring. It is :re<'dlcr; to^irctttiort thal cin rec:ci rt ol' noticc, the petitioner is entitlerl to take^zrll legnlll tcnablr objr:ctions available under the law agitLnst the^said impuenccl r:ot ct' and [hc samc shall be dealt^u itlr,ⁱ :^;.ccordattcc r.r,,irh llLu.^{'I'he -c} shall be no ordcr ats to costs.

¶48

Miscell: rrcorts Pctitions, if any, pending in this r,'rit^petition shall sta:.id clr scd.

¶49

SD,-V,KAVITHA ASSIS']',ANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// (';-''-St:(;Tl()N OFFICER

¶50

To, 1 The Secrelar ,^{lle'/enue(Assignment). The State ofAndhrr[)racesh'}

¶51

1 Departme't^{,e lretarlatHYdetabad}

¶52

2 iiSijiJtri.ic :ttector^{Rania Reoovoisttict at Lakdrkapoolllvd:rabad} i# il;;;;;; ij^{uii'onar otri""i:i",hgiibtaieist' Divisrc rr At ioshamahar} Hvderabad

¶53

4 ri.iSnilfi, .^{(FormerlvMandal Revenue officeO' Qutbull:rc'rrlvlandal'} Qutubullapur d#cti5's^{rl Ranga "V'nnoHdrntsHNA Reddy DistricttvluRTHYAdv^ocate[c)PUC]}

¶54

6 Y;; ;6"i,⁽ 'i^{rba nEVeuuE Highcourt for the state o' rel€ ngana} IOUT]

¶55

7 iif ic. tc^{(;p FoRAsstcNMENTHigh court for the strtoof Tetangana} IOUTI

¶56

I two Ctl C,:P :s

¶57

¶58

¶59

(Along w th the order^{copy dated 06'04'2021 in W'P'No'21'65of 2009)}

Bsq

HIGH^COURI

DATED:1910t¹²⁰²³

ORDER

WP.No.2275^{) of 2009}

¶65

,$
r1 i
-$
5

¶66

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WIHOUT^{C OSTS}

1L
,,
\2 [or
6sq

I ! I

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶71

'WRIT PETITION No.2766 of 2OO9

¶72

ORDER:

¶73

The prayer in this u.rit petition is as follows:

¶74

"...declanng that the allotment/ transkr of land elfecled urrder Section 14(1)and(2) oJthe A.P. Land Refonns (Ceilitgl orr AgricuLtural llotdings) Act, 1973, especiallg after Lhe cotltingencA conlanned in Section 14(2) of the Act is not gouenled bg the prouisions contained tn A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibitrcn of Transfer) Act, 1977 or in the alteration declare thot the resumption mechanism in 1973 Act cannot be exercised bg the l"t respondeti tnuoktng the proutsions of the 1977 Act and cot$equentlA, set aside the impugned resumption orders i'L P-ile No. A/ 351 1/ 2OO5, dated 06.01.2OO7 of the 41h respondent and corrsequently threct the respotldents not to i4terkre tL'itlt tle 7.to.s.ses^siorr^{urdetljoAtrcntofthe plots} belottging lo^the petittotters situoted in Sy. Nos.51 and 52 of Bachupallq Vfllaqe, Qutu^{bu LlahpurM a rtd al, R a ng aR eddg District...} "

¶75

Thc petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of

¶76

various plots, admeasuring 2O0 sq.yds. each, situatcd in Sy. Nos. 51 and 52 of Bachupally Village, Qutubullahpur Mandal having purchased the same under registered sale deeds, from M/s. Sri Laxmi Housing Enterprises, in the years 1997-1998. Ever since the date of purchase, they are in possession of the subject plots. While so, the Tahsildar, Qutubullahpur Mandal, respondent No. 4 herein had passed orders of resumption under Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, 'the Act, 1977) on 06.01.2007 purporting to resume possession of the plots in Sy. Nos. 51 and 52 on the ground that the subject lands were originally ceiling surplus lands under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ce iling on

¶77

iAR.] ) l'J r '-53 o'2309

ti t t

! t

I i I L f, t

Agricultrtr-:t^{lloJdingsl .{t t. I97'l (fbrshr-rrt,' he1rr r' ltlT'l') in the} vc:rr^{i()r 7rnal the siLlll( \its :rssigttctl Lllldcr Sc I otl I-1 crf thc:} AcL.^{1 r7ll i II,lherei)r(. tilc l)ctitioncrs'velld'l|.tllt tlot havc:} alienal^{ed t} t(. ,<ztid :rssiqpccl^{Landsin vier,. c,I rlrr:} 1^rohibition n lcr Section ll^of thc^{AcL, I97T.'l lt' grievancc o[} coll^{[ 21] tlo(l I} the' Pt^Li(:ol e r s is th:rt^{inzrsmuch as they had} l,Ltr<:lrasecl^thc s lr the rc:rrs^{1997-1998 throughrirlitl registercd} sul;ject l:'ltr rr d as tltcr lrarrc^lteen in^{t:ontir-turtLtslos scssion of} sz1[e^{d.cd s} res[)oll(lcn1s are undr:r otrliga i]r'^{lo put Lhem} thc sa.d l)l(^{ls. t he} on^{l.lL)ll(r 'llt li;rt:} piLssirrg Lhe resurnption pr()t -'t:clings and therefcrrc,^{r Irrir(r reslllnption proceedingsart: u'l"auints Lhe} provisiotlr;^{,Ith1 fiqt, lt)77}

¶83

in th countcr^{afllclavithled by the res; orldt'nts, itis} stated^{th:tt liriP. Ramakrishna Prasad, S/o. rienl:ateshwar} prasad. hac trle<l a declaration under the^{provisiotts of A.P. Land} Reforrns^{(C .)/\H) Act, 1973 and he .has beenck clared as a} surplus^{lirn I lrotderto iln extent of Ac. 51.76 cenls bv the Land} Reforms^{,l.r brinal vide. orders in C.C. No. 1!)44,'lvl/./5,dated} 22.07 .l9i'7^{'lhe L:rnd Reforms Tribunalhzrsoas'r;t:d} ')rders^for taking^{ovcri)( isse ss on of thc said extent of land rrr Sy Nos. 44,} )1, 12 1,5!,2,54^{and 56, situated at Bachul)alllVilage. The} lands ha,,c^{been recordcdin the revenue rcco -lsiLs Khariz} Iihata tlrrr u,3h F-aisal Patti in^198O-81 arr,l^19a1-A2.

¶84

¶85

AAR J W P No 2766 of 2009

¶86

¶87

Sr-tbsequentl-v, thc surplus^{land has becn assigncd to landlcss} poor persons, scvcl.r in^{nurnber,and implcmcnted in revenLtr-'} 1990 9 i- Howevcr,^{during the enquiry, it was noticedthat thc} assignces have sold^{the assigned lands to an extent ofAc'1403} guntas in Sy.No. 51 and^{Ac. 18 02 guntas in Sy No' 52 in favour} of M/s. Sri Laxmi^{Housing Enterprises, represented by Sri} G.Punna Rao. Thercfore,^{notices in Form No' 1 under the Act,} 1977 w'erc rssued to^{the assignees as well as purchasers on} 24.O3.2OO5 calling^{for their explanation as to why they should} not be summarill,^{evicted from the assignedlands'As the} purchasers have refused^{to take the notice,the same hasbeen} aifixed at conspicuous^{places in theassignedlands on} 04.O4.2OO5. As the^{assigneesand the purchaser,including the} petitioners, have violated^{and contravened the provisionsof the} Act, 1977 , the Deputy^{Collectorand MandalRevenueOfftcer,} Quthbullapur^{Mandal,has passed the orders,dated O6'O1'2O07} for resumption of^{the assigned lands'At present, the subject} land is not in -possession^{of the petitioners, as alleged by them,} and it is in the custody^{of the Government'}

¶88

Heard the learned^{counselfor the parties and perused the} material available on^record'

¶89

I.i \R J ) N. I a. r)i.rC09

,\dm ttcrllr. trlt' \rrit llclitiot-rcrs arc 1;rtt''1^{,i ri'.rrs ol sr'tlr-jtct} Plols^{t-ttt:lc t:tt-ittrlsl-egistt'l-,'rl strle cleeclsrl l2rLL rt) lhr\ (''ll's} l9()7 l!l!)E it r<1 tlrcl etrc ilt l)osscssion^{of t:rcir rspettlv(l} Plols Altlrottqh it is allcgecl in lhe crntnter^{that thc assif,rl']es as wellas} th(' purcha ;crs of the Iancls,^{ir.rcluclingthe} l)cliti(r.l^{lrs\icre put} on nol.ice, t o tn,tte^{rial Ilas bectl liled to sup;rorl tl-c sail clairll by} thr: respon ients.^{Thc Iearllt:d counsel lor Lhc r('titilrlershas} vchen-r:n:lr⁽ orlcnded that^{\ilhout makitlq rhe} 1'eti.iotltrs^as prrrtv re :ip )r-r(1cnts, thc ollrr:irtl^{rcspondctllshar rplssccl the} irnpugrrcrl :rrdcrs. As pcr ltro','isions^{ol tlle /.r't, 197ine} rcspondent,., b< forc^{prlssingztlrl ordcrs,ar( ttn(lrlrobligation to} issr.rc notic lo the persons irl^{possessionol'tlrt llndas otl the} date the pr rcce,lings are initiatecl.^{Recentlr',this ()ourt in W.P.} No. 279C4^c.tl 2012^(disposeclof on^{O8.03. 2O:21)} 'vhile^dealing with the si r-rilal issue. has c:rtegorically^{held rha I notice trl the} persons in ross,-'ssion of thc land as on the^{t'elr:varr1. date,frlr the} proposed rr srrmption, is mandatory in vieu'of^{the prcvisionsof} the Act. .{c mittedly, no ltoticc^{has been isstled to I Ire petitioners} in the pr,:s:nt c:ase. In that^view of^{the matler, v/ithout} Uoing ir-rto the rr::rits or demerits of the^{case, l.ht: v'rit petitionis} disposed of st tting trside thc^{impugnedproccedinllsThe matter} is rcmande I to tht: conccrnr:d :ruthoritics and^{tl ct:oncerned} auLhoritics slrall put the pctitioners and^{zrrLv olhel persons}

¶94

AAR J w P No 2766^{0f 2009}

¶95

¶96

and pass^{appropriatcin accordanceu'ith} intcrcsted^{on notlce} Iarv after^aflording them an opportunitl'^{o[ submitling thcir} opportunity^{ol hearing.Itis needlessto} explanation^andan mention^{that on receipt of notice, thc pctitioners are entitled to} take all^{the tegalll' tenablc objections availableunderthe law} against^{the said impugned noticeand the same shall be dealt} with in accordance^{ivith lau''}

¶97

Miscellaneous Petitions Pending^{in thrs writ Petition,if} There shall^{be no order as to costs} any, shall^{stand closed}

¶98

A.ABHISHEK^{REDDY, J}

¶99

Date 06-o4-2021 tsr

¶100

K.Lal Kishore v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Lal Kishore v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padidala Sambaiah , Shivarao , Samba Siva Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Kadari Kiran Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Ravinuthula Nagendramma Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kuchipudi Kusuma Vs The State of Telangana

Karkala Mamathamma Vs The State of Telangana

Bankuru Venkata Ramani Vs The State of Telangana