Allowed

Mahesh Golechha, v. The Tahsildar, Bachannapet Mandal

Telangana HC15 Dec 2023WP/23511/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an impugned resumption order passed under the AP Assigned Lands Act because it violated natural justice by failing to issue a required notice to the petitioners before taking the decision, directing the respondent to follow proper procedure.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 31.10.2007 were set aside. The petitioners are directed to submit an explanation within 4 weeks. The respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders after giving personal h

Mahesh Golechha, Vs The Tahsildar, Bachannapet Mandal — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^3303I

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS^RAO WRIT PETITION NOS: 23510 AND 23511^{OF 20Ol}

¶6

wP NO.23510 0F 2007:.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Reshma Golechha, Wo.Mahesh Golechha R/o.^{71, SamratCoklny,} West Marredpally, Secunderabad. ...pETt.oNER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Tahsildar, Bachannapet Mandal,, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more^{particularlyone in the} nature of writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to^{and in connection with the} proceedings dt. 31-'10-2007 passed in File.No. 813061l20O7 and^quash the^same.

¶11

l.A. NO: 1OF 2007^(WPMP. NO: 30635 OF 200^7t

¶12

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC^praying that in the^{circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{HighCourt maybe pleased to stay} all further^proceedings by suspending the^{operation of the proceedingsdt- 31-10-} 2007 passed in File No. 8,1306112007^pending disposal^{of the writpetition.}

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GHANTA RAMA^{RAO, SENIOR COUSNELFOR} SRI MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI

¶14

Counsel for Respondent: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶15

WP NO: 23511 OF 2007

¶16

Between:

¶17

Mahesh Golechha,, S/o Sureshchand Golechha,^{Rlo 71, Samrat Colony,} West Marredpally, Secunderabad-500 026. ...PETITIONER

¶18

AND

¶19

The Tahsildar, Bachannapet Mandal,, Warangal District.

¶20

Petition under Articte 226 of the Constirution of tndia or"r,d:;:ii"":ilJ circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for records relating to and in connection with the proceedings dated 31-1o-2ooz passed in File No.8/3061t20o7 and quash the same.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1OF 2OOz(WPMP. NO:30636 0F 2007) 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings by suspending the operation of the proceedings dated 31-'10-2007 passed in Fite No,B/3061tzooz pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt GHANTA RAMA RAO, SENTOR COUSNEL FOR SRI MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARl

¶23

Counsel for Respondent GP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶24

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENf1IAS^RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION Nos.2351O and 23511 of^2OO7

¶27

COMMON ORDER:

¶28

Writ Petition Nos.23510 of 2OO7 and 23511 of 2OO7

¶29

are hled seeking the following relief:

¶30

"to issue an appropriate urit order or direction more partianlarlg one in the nature of wit of Certiorai calling for records^{relating to} and in connection with the^proceedings dt 31.1O.2O07 passed in FiIe No.B/3061/2007 and quash tlrc same and to^pass such^otLer order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of tle case."

¶31

Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behatf of the^{petitionersand} learned Assistant Government Pleader^{for Revenue} (Assignment) appearing on behalf of respondent.

¶32

Learned Senior Counsel for the^petitioners submits that petitioner in^{W.P.No.2351Oof 2OO7 has} ptrrchased the property to an extent of Acs.4.l8^Y" grrntas in Sy.No.l47 /22/B ttrrough registered^sale deed vide document^No. 198/2OO6^on01.02.2006 from the rightful owner by^{paying sale consideration'}

¶33

¶34

¶35

Since then,^{tre has been in possessionand enjoyment} of the said subject^{property wittr absolute rights'}

¶36

Similarly, petitioner in^{W.P.No.235l1of2OO7} has purchased^{the property to an extentof} Acs.46.26Y,^{guntas inSy.No.l47} /3OA^through registered document^{No. 1215/2OO5 dated 06'12'2OO5} by paying sale^{consideration. Since then,he has been} in possession^{andenjoyment of the said subject} property with absolute^rights.

¶37

He further submits that,^{Revenr.e authorities,} after following due^{procedure as contemplatedunder} law mutated the^{narnes of the petitioners inttre} reventle records^{and issuedpattadar passbooks and} title deeds.

¶38

While things stood thus,^{the petitionershave} received a copy^{of the proceedingsdated 31'IO'2OO7} from the office of^{respondent,whereinithas been} stated that, the subject^{propertyis an assigned land} and the sarne was^{assigned infavour of Sri'M'} Balanarasiah and^{others and the petitioners have}

¶39

¶40

purchased the sarrre in contravention of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfersl Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act 9 of 1977") and as such the said land has been resumed into the Government custody.

¶41

Learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that before passing the impugned order, respondent AS has not issued any notice to the petitioners contemplated under the provisions of Rr.rle 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) (Amendment) Rules,2OOT (herein after called 'the Rules" for brevity). He further contend that admittedly the subject land is not a Government Assigned land and the same is private patta land and the petitioners have purchased the same property through registered sale deeds. The impugned order passed by respondent is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and contrar5r to the provisions of Act and Rules made there under.

¶42

¶43

tearned Senior Counsel further contended that after issuing the impugned order^{dated 3l.lO.2OO7,} the respondent issued notice under^{Forrn-II dated} O2.LL.2OO7 and the safire was^{served upon the} petitioners on 05. ll.2OO7^.

¶44

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioners are not^residing in the village,. where the subject^{propertyis situated} and respondent after following the^{procedure, affixed} notices in Gram Panchayat oflice and the^respondent rightly passed resumption order and the same^{are in} accordance with law. She further submits^that petitioners without availing the remedy of appeal^as provided under the Act, straightaway approached this Court and frled the writ petitions and the sarne^are not maintainable under law.

¶45

Having considered the rival subrnissions^made by the respective parties and after^{perusal ofthe} material available on record it clearly reveals that the petitioners are claiming the rights over the subject

¶46

¶47

properties basing upon the registered sale deeds dated O6.12.2OO5 ar-d 0L.02.2006 Pr.rrsuant to the sarne their narnes were mlltated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued. Respondent had initiated the proceedings exercising the powers conferred under the Act 9 of 1977 and rules made thereunder, and passed the impugned resumption orders on 31. lO.2OO7.

¶48

11 It appears from the record that petitioners have not received show cause notice from the respondent prior to passing the impugned order. It is very muctr relevant to extract Rule 3 of the Rules, 2OOZ which reads as follows;

¶49

"3. Procedure Jor euiction of the transferee and ta.king leossession a.nd restoro;tion of assigned lq.nds:- The Distict Collector or the AutLnri.sed Offi.cer shatl, before taking action under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, issue notices in Fortn No.I and Forrn II to the persons who Ltaue transferred and also to the persons tuho haue acquired ang assigned land in contrauention of the prouisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The notices

¶50

¶51

shall be serued bg deliueing a copA on transferor and transferee or some adult rnale member of the familg^{of such transferor} or^transferee at their usual place of aboue or to their autLaised agent or bg affi-ring a copA th-ereof at some conspicuous place of their last knotun place of residence or on some conspicuous part of th-e assigned land. Afier the expiry of (fifieen) 15 dags specified in the notice, the District Collector or the Autlarised Officer shall consider tle representation, if ang, receiued uith reference to the said notice and pass such orders as h,e thinks fit and proper. If it is held thnt th.e prouisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act, ?w.ue been contrauened in reqtect of ang assigned land, a copg of the order shall be communicated to tlrc Village Offi"cer concertted under u)hose territoial jurisdiction tlrc land is situated for taking laossession of the land and thereupon the land shall be disposed of in accordance uith th.e prouisions of Section 4 of the Act."

¶52

Admittedly, respondent even withor.rt issuing any notices . to the last known address, passed the impugned order alleging that show cause notices have affixed in the Gram Panchayat office though the petitioners address were very much available in the

¶53

¶54

¶55

copies of registered sale deeds. Respondent without complying the statutory provisions of Rule 3 of rules 2OO7 passed impugned order behind their back. Whether the subject land is assigned land or private patta land that is the disputed question of fact which has to be determined by the respondent after conducting Denouo enquiry and also after due verihcation of the records. However, this Court finds that the respondent passed the impugned order without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners have purchased the property through registered sale deeds by paying sa-le consideration.

¶56

It is very much relevant to place on record that in Allugn llousing Colong Welfare Assoclatl.on as. Gooerttntent oJ Andhra Pradesh and. othersr, the Honlcle Apex Court specifically held that, no adverse order should be passed against the party without hearing him. In the case on hand, the specific claim of the petitioners is that respondent before passing

¶57

'^zooe 1e;^scc+ss

¶58

¶59

the impugned order has not issued any notice and also not given any opportunity to the petitioners.

¶60

It is also relevant to place on record that in Sayapuram Ramakrishna Vs General Manager, District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Khammam District and others2, this Court held that;

¶61

"14. In G. Gangaram Vs. APSEB, Hyderabad, (2oos (5) ALD 321 this Court relying upon the^judgment of division Bench of this Court in Estate Oflicer and Manager (Recoveries) , A. P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. Hyderabad and others Vs. Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore and others,(2OO3(5)ALD599) specifically held in paragraph No.6 that the writ petition which has been admitted and pending in this Court for rnore than eleven years, it is neither just nor proper for this Court to now refuse to exercise the discretion and dismiss the writ petition on the ground of

¶62

2 2023 l5l ALD s48 (TS)

¶63

¶64

t \

¶65

availability of alternative remedy^{which reads}

¶66

as follows:

¶67

Eistence of alternatiue remedA is not a bar for exercise of^jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It fs uell settled that^wLtile existence of an effectiue alternatiue remedg tlould be a factor to be taken into consideration by this Court for inuoking its^juisdiction under^Article 226 of th-e Constitution, it does not bar the juisdiction of this Court to entertain a uit petition solelg on the^{ground that} tlrc alternatiue remedg has not^been exhausted. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nonnallg refitses to exercise ifs discretion^to interfere at the threshold on the^ground of auailabilitg of an effectiue alternatiue rernedg. Hauing admitted tLLe utit petition, tulticLt has been pending in this Court for more tltan eleuen^gears, it^is neither just nor proper for this^{Court to} now refitse to exerci.se its discretion^and dismiss the urit petition on^{th.e ground} of auaitabilitg of alternatiue^remedg.

¶68

In view of the^{foregoingreasons as well as the} law laid down by^{the Hon'lcle Apex Court, inthe} irnpugned orders dated^{3l.lO.2OO7 in fileNo.} B/3O6li2OO7^{passed by the respondent is liable to} be set aside on the sole^{ground that the same is clear} violation of the^principles of^{natural justice and} contrary to the^{provisions of 'the Rules"- Accordingly,}

¶69

I ,

¶70

¶71

directed^to set aside.^{However, thepetitioners are} in File^No. to the^notices submit the^exPlanatron B/ 3Cl6l l2OO7,^{dated 17'O5'2OO7respectivelyraising} all the^{grounds which are available in law' within a} period of^{for.rr (O4) weeks from ttre date of receipt of a} explanation^being copy of^{this order' Onsuch} directed^to Pass submitted,^{theresPondentis} appropriate^{orders in accordancewith law after giving} to the^{petitioners, including personal} opportunitY hearingwittrinaperiod.ofeight(o8)weeksfrom ttrereafter.^{Till such tirne' the respondent is directed} not to^{take any coercive steps in respect of the subject} proPerties.