Allowed

Edugu Mallaiah v. The Govt .of a.P.,rep.by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC23 Dec 2024WP/32257/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at its original jurisdiction allowed a writ petition challenging proceedings for resumption of assigned land. The Court held that the impugned order failed to issue a notice or provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as mandated by the Act, violating principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders are set aside; the matter is remanded to the respondent Tahsildar to issue notice to parties and conduct an enquiry within three months.

Edugu Mallaiah Vs The Govt .of a.P.,rep.by its Principal… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

.,1

¶2

[³³⁰²¹

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 32257 OF 2010

¶8

Between:

¶9

Edugu Mallaiah, S/o.Ailaiah, Aged about 70^{years, Rl/o.SuraramVillage, Elkathurthi} Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

2 The Joint Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶14

J The Revenue Divisional Officer, Elkathurthi, Karimnagar District.

¶15

4 The Tahsildar, Elkathurthi Mandal, Elkathurthi, Karimnagar District.

¶16

5 B.Mankaiah S/o.Durgaiah

¶17

6 B.Rajaiah S/o. Durgaiah

¶18

7 B.Anandam S/o.Durgaiah (Respondents 5 to 7 are Fl/o. Suraram Village, Elkathurthi Mandal, Karimnagar District)

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more^. one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the^proceedings of the 4th^respondentin No.8/44412005 dated 17.5.2006^{is illegal, arbitrary, and} contrary^{to the provisions} of AP Rights in Land, Pattadar^{Pass Book Act and as wellas AP (Prohibitionof} Assigned Land Act) 1977^{and in gross violation of principlesof naturaljustice and}

¶21

¶22

consequently set aside the^{proceedings of} the^{4rh respondentin No. 8/44412005} dated 17.5.2006

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP. NO:^{40989OF 2010)}

¶24

Petition under Section I51 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filedⁱⁿ support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased} to suspend the operation of the order^{No.Bl444t2OO5} dated^17.5.2006 of lhe^4h respondent^pending disposal of the main writ^petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BALLA RAVINDRANATH^SAVITHRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to^{4: AGP} FOR^ASSIGNMENT

¶26

Gounsel for the Respondents No.5 & 7: SRI P.^DEVENDER

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SARATH WRIT PETTTION N0.32257^{0F 2010}

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ petition is^{frled under Article 226 of} Constitution of India^{seeking the followingrelief:}

¶31

". ..to issue a uit, ord.er or a^{direction moreparticularlg} one in the nature of^{Wit ofMandomusdeclaingthe} proceed-ings of the respondent^{No.4 in No.B/444/2OO5, dated} 17.05.2006 is illegal,^{arbitrary, contraryto the prouisions of} A.P. Rights in Land,^{Pattaclar Pass Book Act and as utell as A'P'} (Prohibition of Assigned Lond^{Act), 1977 and in gross uiolation} of pinciples of natural^{justice, ond consequential,set aside the} proceedings of the responc)ent^{No.4 in No.B/444/2005,dated} 1 7. 05.2006 and Pass...^"

¶32

Heard learned counsel^{appearing for the petitioner} and learned Assistant^{GovernmentPleaderfor Assignment} ald learned counsel^{for unofhcial respondents and perused} the entire material on^record.

¶33

3, Learned counsel^{for the petitioner submitsthat the} petitioner 1S challenging the^{proceedingsissued by the} respondent No.4^{vide No.Bla44/2005,dated 17-05.2006}

¶34

SK,J W.P.No.32257 of 2O 10

¶35

resuming lands in violation of A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfersl Act, 7977 (for brevity "the Act, 1e77")

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner purchased the land from the father of the unofficial respondents to al extent of Ac.11 38 guntas in Sy.No.319 situated at Surram Viliage, Ilkathurthy Maldal, Karimnagal District from the respondent Nos.5 to 7, after paying valuable consideration in the year, 7984. From the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession of the property and mutated the nalnes of the petitioner in revenue recor:ds and the Revenue Authorities issued pass books ald title deeds. Earlier, the petitioners filed Civil Suit against the father of the unofficial respondents and obtained the orders in O.S.No.BO6 of 1986 on the hle of District Mur-rsif Magistrate, Karimnagar District and also the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad respectively. While it lieing so, the respondent No.4 without issuing aly notice or ..

¶37

SK,J W.P.No.32257 of²⁰¹⁰

¶38

examining the record^{had passedthe impugnedorder in} Proceedings No.Blaaal2OO5,^{dated17.05.2006 and the} same is illegal, arbitrary^{and in violationof principlesof} natural^justice and^{contrary to the provisionsof the Act,} 1977 and A.P. Rights^{in Land Pattadar Pass Books Act,} t971.

¶39

Learned counsei for^{the petitionerfurther submits} that the father of^{the unofhcia-l respondents granted a} Lavoni Patta. As^{per the Lavoni Patta, there was no} condition for Prohibition^{of Alienationand the petitioner} purchased the land^{from the assignee of Lavoni Patta} holder and without^{issuing any notice, highhandedly} passed impugned orders^{againstthe principles of natural} justice and requested to allow the^{writ petition'}

¶40

Learned Assistant^{Government Pleader and learned} counsel for unofficia-l^{respondents basing on the counter} submits that^{the suit scheduleland was assignedto one Sri}

¶41

¶42

¶43

SK,J W.P.No.32257 of 201O

¶44

Bugga Durgaiah, father of the unofficial respondent Nos.s to 7 in the year, 7962 :under Laoni Patta During the routine enquiry, it came to light that the assigned lald was purchased bv the petitioner herein through a simple sale deed from the original assignee. The petitioner herein also filed a suit in O.S.No.806 of 1986 against the father of the unofficia-l respondents herein on the hle of the District Munsif, Karimnagar District and the sarne was decreed. Thereafter, the then Mandal Revenu Officer, Elkathurthy has also implemented the patta in favour of the petitioner ald a-lso issued pattadar pass book and title deed to that effect. After the death of the original assignee, the lega1 heirs of thr: assignee, Sri Bugga Rajaialr and others submitted a petition before the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Karimnagar who in turn directed to restore the land to the legal heirs of the assignee by taking the larld from the petitioner herein since the land was assigned lald and it is not an alienable. In compliance to the said orders, the

¶45

¶46

SK,J W.P.No.32257 of 2010

¶47

Mandal Revenue Ofhcer,^{Elkathurthy Mandal issued} impugned proceedings^No.Bla44 l2OO5,^{dated17'05'2006'} Thereafter, the^{petitioner herein filed O.S.No.97of 2006 on} the file of the Junior^{Civil Judge, Huzurabad ald obtained} injunction orders^{in I.A.No.325of 2006, dated 06'02'2008} against the respondent^{Nos.4 to 7and the samewas} disposed of in^{favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is} cha,llenging the^{impugned proceedingsnearly after the} lapse of 4 years.^{The land in question is admittedlyas} assigned land and it^{is not alienable and the purchase of} the same by the^{petitionerwas in contravention of the Act} and the Rules arrd^{hence the resumptionof the lald uide} Proceedings No.B I^4aa I^{2005, dated 17.05.2006 is perfectly} in accordance with law.^{There is no vioiation and} requested to dismiss the^{writ petition.}

¶48

After hearing both sides^{and perusing the material} on record, this Court is of the^{considered view that} admittedly there is no dispute^{with regard to the name of}

¶49

¶50

SK,J W.P.No.32257 of 2010

¶51

I I I It i a

¶52

the petitioner recorded as pattadar of the suit schedule land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.:lB guntas 1n Sy.No.319 sil,uated at Surram Village, Elkathurthy Mandal, Karimnagar District. Earlier, the petitioner approached the competent Civil Court and obtained decree against the father of the unofficial respondents in O.S.No.8O6 of 1986 arrd O.S.No.97 of 2006 respectively.

¶53

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner IS challenging the impugned orders in Proceedings No.B / 44a I 2OO5, dated 77 .05.2006 issued by the respondent No.4 for resumption of the suit schedule land from the pel,itioner in violation of the Act, 1977. The contention of the petitioner is that without an1, notice ald without following procedure under the Act, 1977, the respondent No.4 issued impugned proceedings and the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶54

¶55

SI(,J W.P.No.32257 of 2010

¶56

\ $

¶57

g. This Court perused the^{impugned proceedings alld} the material papers hled by the^{both sides and there is no} reference with regard to the^{notice to the petitioner and not} obtained explanation from the^{petitioner before passing} impugned orders as contemplated^{under the Act, 1997.} Without issuing any notice^{merely basing onthe} instructions of the RDO, the^{Tahsiidar cannotpass} resumption orders which^{affect the rights of the petitioner.}

¶58

After conducting enquiry^{and aJter issuing notice to} the petitioner and giving opportunit5r^{to the petitioneras} well as the unoff,rcial respondents,^{the respondentNo.4 has} to pass orders by following^{the procedureas contemplated} under the Act, 1997 and^{Rules thereunder.}

¶59

In view of the same, the^{impugned orders are liable} to be set aside and it has to^{be reconsideredby the} respondent No.4 by^giving opportunity^{to both sides'} ,,

SK,J W.P.No.32257 of 2010

¶64

1S L2. In view of the above^{findings, the writ petition} disposed of by setting aside^{the impugned orders and} remanding the matter to the respondent^{No.4 and the} respondent No.4 is directed to^{issued notice to both parties} ald conduct enquiry as^per the^{procedure under Telangana} Assigned Lands (Prohibition^{of Transfers) Act, 1977 within} three (3) months from the date^{of receipt of copy of this}

¶65

order. There shall be no order^{as to costs.}

¶66

Miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{pendingshal1stand}

closed.

To,

/iTRUE COPY//

SD/-N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶73

ECTION OFFICER

¶74

'1 The Prlncipal Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of A.p., Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶75

The Joint Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶76

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Elkathurthi, Karimnagar District.

¶77

The Tahsildar, Elkathurthi Mandal, Elkathurthi, Karimnagar District

¶78

one cc to sRt BALLA RAVTNDRANATH sAVrrHRr DEV|, Advocate topucl 6 Two ccs to GP for Assignment, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶79