Maripeddi Lakshmi , Lakshmamma Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Maripeddi Lakshmi , Lakshmamma Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the resumption by respondent No.4 (Tahsildar) of Ac.4-00 gts of assigned agricultural land in Survey No.671 of Suryapet Village and Mandal — on the alleged grounds of transfer of assigned land and absence of cultivation in violation of patta conditions — as confirmed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A, warranting setting aside of the impugned orders under Article 226. +2 more

Court's answer

The impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmities warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; hence the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Under the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 — beneficial legislation enacted as a measure of social justice to provide livelihood to landless poor persons — assigned lands are heritable but not alienable, and are to remain in the cultivation of the assignee or their family members.

Key takeaways

Section 2(6) of the POT Act defines 'transfer' without excluding testamentary dispositions; understood in light of the Act's object of prohibiting induction of strangers into assigned lands, whether during the assignee's lifetime or thereafter, if assigned lands were transferable by will, adoption deeds or other testamentary instruments the Act's purpose would be frustrated — any bequest in favour of strangers is invalid and hit by Section 2(6), and such dispositions would also fall foul of the principles under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.ratio¶62
The petitioner, though in possession of Ac.1.00 gts originally assigned to Bantu Swamy claiming to be his adopted daughter, produced no admissible evidence to support the claim (nothing showing when the alleged adoption took place nor any valid document), and therefore is not entitled to claim that land as his adopted daughter/legal heir.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Special Original Jurisdiction) — Writ Petition (captioned W.P. No.10764 of 2019; body pages print 10754) — C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J. — decided 09-04-2025 — Writ Petition DISMISSED without costs. Maripeddi Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma challenged the Tahsildar's order in Proc.No.B/8024/16 dated 19.12.2016 resuming Ac.4-00 gts in Sy.No.671 of Suryapet Village (Ac.3-00 gts assigned to her on 31.05.2001; Ac.1-00 gts assigned to Bantu Swamy), confirmed by the RDO in Appeal No.D2/131/2017 dated 06.05.2017 and by the Joint Collector in Revision Case No.F2/1904/2017 dated 31.03.2018, on grounds of transfer of assigned land and non-cultivation. Holding: lands assigned under the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 are heritable but not alienable; Section 2(6)'s definition of 'transfer' does not exclude testamentary dispositions, and allowing transfer by will, adoption deeds or similar instruments would frustrate the Act's object of preventing induction of strangers into assigned lands — bequests to strangers are invalid, hit by Section 2(6) and contrary to Transfer of Property Act, 1882 principles. The petitioner furnished no admissible evidence of her claimed adoption by Bantu Swamy; she alienated Ac.1-05 gts to Bollam Venkatamma and left the land uncultivated (fallow/'padava', pahanies Columns 18-24, per G.O.Ms.No.255 Revenue (LR) dated 10.03.1982), violating assignment conditions and G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958. These findings satisfied the requirements for cancellation of the assignment; the Tahsildar, RDO and Joint Collector passed reasoned orders free of legal infirmity, so no Article 226 interference was warranted. Interim orders of 04-06-2019 (I.A. No.1 of 2019) protecting possession stood superseded by the dismissal; miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

[³²⁹⁶ ]

I F F

L :

i

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

WEDNESDAY,^{THE NINTH} DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND^AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

wRl T PETITION^{NO: 10764} OF 201 I

Between:

Maripeddi Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma, Wo Veeraiah, Aged about 50 vears. residnet of Sitaramapuram Suryapet town and District, Telangana State.'

...PETITIONER

AND

State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue^.Department, Secretariat, Hyd-erabad.

2 The Joint Collector, Sueyapet, suryapet district Telangana State. l) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, suryapet District Tetangana State

4 The Tahsildar, Suryapet, suryapet District Telangana State

...RESPONDENTS

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 a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus'declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in passing order in Proc.No,BiB024116 Dt 19-12-2016 as confirmed by the respondent No.2 and 3 in Revision Case No F21190412017 by order dated 31-03-2018 and Appeal No.D2113112017 Dt.O6-05-201 7 respectively directing to rqsume the assigned agricultural land in an extent of Ac.4.00 in Survey No.671 (6711481111 Ac.3.0O and 67113011 Ac.1.00) of suryapet Village and Mandal, Quryapet District from the petitioner on the alleged ground lhat there is transfer of ,assigned Iand and there was no cultivation in violation of conditions of patta as the same is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction besides being violative of Article 14,21 and 30O-A of the constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the impugned order being null and void.

i I I

F .

IA NO:^{1 OF 2019}

Petition unrjer Section I51 CPC^praying that in the^{crrcunstancesstated} in the^{affidavit filed ir support of the petition,the High Courl} 'nay^{be pleasedto} direct^{theresp,3nc en's not to interfere with the possessionof tre petitioners land} in an^{extentc.f A,c>C2 00 in Survey No 671 (67'l148/1/.1Ac: :i 0rJ and 67113Q11} Ac.1.00)^{of suryapetvillageand Mandal, SuryapetDistrict t,y suspending thq} proceedings of^{the respQndent} No.4ⁱⁿ Proc.No^{8/8024116 Dl 19-12-2O16as} confirmed^{by the 'esDondent No.2 and 3 in RevrsionQase} No^{F11190412017by.} order dated^{31-03-2C18 and Appeal No.D2l131/2017Dt.06-05-2(.17 respectively} pending disposal^{of the above writ petition.}

IAN^{O: 1 OF 2023}

Between:

State of Telangala, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revent;e . Department, Secretariat. Hyderabad.

The Joint Collector, Sueyapet, suryapet district^{Telanganalitate.}

3 The Revenue Jivisional Officer, Suryapet,^suryapet District^Te langana State

The Tahsildar^liuryapet, Furyapet^{DistrictTelangana} State

.,,PETITIONERS

AND

lVlaripedCi Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma, Wo Veeraiah. Aged ,about 50 years, residnet of Sitaramapuram Suryapet town and District, Telang;ana State.

...RESPONDENT

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circunrstances stated in the^{affidavit filerJin support of the petition,the HighCourt nray be pleasedto} vacate^{the interimorders in l.A. No. 1 of 2019in W.P. No 10754 ot 2019, dated} 04-06-2019

Counsel^{for the Pertitioner: SRI PASHAM RAVINDRA REDDY} Counsel^{for the Rerspondents: GP FORASSIGNMENT} The Court^{made tl" e following:} ORDER

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

trIRJT PETITION No.1O754 of2Ol9

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is frled by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a uit, order or a direction, more particularlg one in nature of Wit of Mandamus declaing the oction of th-e respondent No.4 in passing order in Proc.No.B/ 8024/ 16 Dt.19 12 2016 os confinned bg the respondent No.2 and 3 tn Reuision Cqse No F2/1904/2017 bg order doted 31-03-2018 and Appeal No.D2/ 131/2017 DL06-05 2017 respectiuelg directing to resume the assigned agicttltural land in an ertent of Ac.4.O0 in Surueg No. 671 (671/48/1/ 1 Ac.3.OO and 671/ 30/ 1 Ac. 1 .OO) of Suryopet Village and Mandal, Suryapet Dtstict . from^{the petitioneron the allegedground thatthere is transferof} assigned land and there was no culfiuation in uiolation of conditions of patta os the same is arbitrary, itlegal and uithout juisdiction besides being uiolatiue of Article 14,21 and 300 A of the constitution of India qnd consequentlA set aside the impugned order being nuLl and uoid...."

It is stated that the petitioner belongs to Backward Class

(B.C) community and hails from economicaily poor family. It is further stated that the respondent No.4 has assigned agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts in Sy.No.671 ef Suryapet Village vide patta No.G/ ).58212OO1 dated 31.05.2001. It is also stated that land admeasuring Ac.1-O0 gts in Sy.No.671 was assigned to Bantu Swamy, who is maternal uncle of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that since said Bantu Swamy had no issues, he adopted her and she succeeded the said land admeasuring Ac. 1-0O gts and became owner of total land admeasuring Ac.4-OO gts. It is further case of the petitioner that her name is recorded as pattadar and

2

.j

possessor ,)l :he subject lands and she is dciing r r-tl,ivation and -i receivinl:; various incentives sanctioned by thc Go',crnment from time to tim,r

\I,'hile 1.he matter stood thus, RespondenL \o 4-Tahsildar initiated ar enquiry under Section 3(2) of the Telangaea Assigned Lands (l']rohr bitron of Transfers) Act, lg77 (fc,r sh rrt, "POT Act, 1,977"),,:rni ir;sued a notice dated 07.1O.2O16, statiLrrs that the land admeasrrrin;1 l\c.1-00 gts in Sy.No.671 was kepl fallo.r,rrnd that the assigne€ hrLd 'riolated the assignment conditions br no: cultivating the iand. S^,,r trsequently, Form-l and Form-ll noticesi were issued to the petitlor.rc.l ald the original assignee unde- Proceedings No.B/8O2a,'..)C 16 dated 3l.lO.2016, on the gr,rru1,i that the petitioner 1r:Lc acquired the assigned land tn viola,ion of the conditions cl the assignment patta granted under the pOT Act, 1977. As; thl c,riginal assignee, Bantu Swamy, had alre ady expired by the tirne tl-u: notice was issued and had no leqal hcrrs,, the notice was affu;ecl on the land in the presence of witnesst:s. I n response, the petrtioner submitted explanation dated 15. 1 1 .1:tO 16. After conducting an enquiry, Respondent No.4 passed ;rn order vide Proceedi;rgs Nc.B/8024/2016 dared 19.12.2Ot6, stari-rg that, out of the total exter t of Ac.4-00 gts, the petitioner had sokl Ac.1-05 gts to one Bollam /t:nkatamma, W/o. Raju, in violation of t l-re conditions

J

of the assignment. It was further stated in the said order that the petrtloner is neither the pattadar nor related to the original assignee-Bantu Swamy, and that she was claiming possession of Ac.3-O0 gts on the ground that it was given to her as PasLpukunkuma. However, she was found to be in unauthorised possession of Ac.4-00 gts of assigned land. The Respondent No.4 further observed that both the petitioner and the assignee had violated the terms and conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No. i406 dated 25.07.195g, and consequently, the lands assigned to Bantu Swamy and in possession of the petitioner were resumed to Government custody. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 4,A of the pOT Act, tgTZ on the file of Respondent No.3. After examining the material on record. the Respondent No.3 dismissed the appeal vide Proceedings No.D2l l3l /2012 dated 06.05.2O17, observing thar the petitioner had admitted to receiving Ac. 1_00 gts assigned to Bantu Swamy, but failed to fire any documentary evidence to estabrish that she was the legal heir of the original assignee. She arso admitted that she alienated an extent of Ac.1-05 gts in favour of Bollam Venkatamma out of Ac.3-OO gts allegedly assigned to her. The Respondent No.3 held that the actions of the petitioner were in violation of the conditions of assignment and contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the POT Act, 1977, and accordingly, upheld the order of

. t- I i

I

4

'..j

!

t :

t

Respondertt No.4^{for resumptionofthe land infrvour} -^ofthe GoverrrmenLt.^{Challengingthe same, the petition€r filed a revlslon} vicleNr>.Ir.2,'lgo4l2OlTunderSectionaB(l)oithePrfTAct'1977 beforc th:^{IlesPondentNo'2} Upon consideraticn^{clthe record,} the Revision^{Case v idtorcler dated} Respotrdenr^{No.2 dismissed} 31.03.2018,^{holding that 'the petitionerhad alienalerl a portion of} the land^{assignedin her favour and failed to establist' that shewas} the aCoJrtc'tl^{daughterorsrlccessor-in-intcrest of the original} assignee.^{Nl,rreover,no evidence was placed to sh')w that the land} u,as u nder cultivatlon.

Th s^{(lourt has carefullyconsideredthesu bn Lissionsof the} learnld^{t:tt'rnsel for the petitioner, the learned Go"ernment Pleader} for A ssilgt^{n-rent appearingfor the respondcnts'u-rtiperusedthe} reCOr,:i

[t is seen from^{the record that land admeastrrrngAc 3 00 gts} in 31^{. Nc .6.i'} I^{of Suryapet Village wasassignedt o t[ e petitioner as} Iandl:ss rsor^{person vide ProceedingsNo G'/ 3t;2 l2OOldated} 31.0:i.2001^{, As per the freld verification' a reportr'r'zLs submittedby} the Vil1a^{gy: RevenueOfhcer(VRO) and Mandal Gir'la''varstating that} the satcl^{lrtnd was kept fallow since allotment'r n Ithe} pahanies refle,:;t -h aL no^{crops were cultivated,with Cr'lu rrns} 18 to 24 shou'ing1 l'-re land^{as fa11ow(padava)With r'3s'p€ ctto} the land

5

i

I

admeasuring Ac. 1.00 gts assigned to Bantu Swamy, the petitioner failed to hle any document to prove that she is the adopted daughter or the legal heir of the original assignee. No evidence was placed on record to establish when the alleged adoption took place nor any valid document produced in support of such claim. The Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 is a benehcial legislation enacted as a measure of social justice, intended to provide livelihood to landless poor persons. Lands assigned under the Act are heritable but not alienable, and are to remain in the cultivation of the assignee or their family members. Section 2(6) of the POT Act defines "transfer" in a manner that does not exclude testamentary dispositions, and this provision must be understood in light of the object and purpose of the Act, which prohibits induction of strangers into assigned iands, either during the lifetime of the assignee or thereafter. If assigned lands are allowed to be transferred by will, adoption deeds, or other testamentary instruments, the very purpose of the Act would be frustrated. Even if a will is executed by the assignee, any bequest in favour of strangers is invalid and hit by Section 2(6) of the Act. Moreover, such testamentary dispositions would also fall foul of the principles under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In the present case, the petitioner is in possession of Ac. 1.0O gts of land originally assigned to Bantu Swamy, claiming to be his adopted daughter, but she has

-t

6

!

I 11 ll

ii

not p)l'o(h-Lced any admissible evidence to supporr he _ claim. Sofaras the l,:rnd .lc:measuring Ac.3_0O gts assigned to he,r rs concerned, it is reve e led I'-r,.m the recorrl that the petitioner has al enated Ac.l.05 gts tr llol am Venkatamma W/o Raju. The p:tir_ioner has nor specr ical.,- denied this alienation, and the records also establish that hc l:rrrd was not under active cultivation, as pt,r the pahanies prodr c€.(i lrefore the Respondent No.2 The C.ol ernment, vide G.O.tr,Is I,l:r.:255, Revenue (LR) Department, cl:: t er i lO.O3.7gg2. direct,:d rl tcgration of Village Accounts (pahan ir s) to reflect the naturrr oi lands, crop cultivation, survey nurr be rs,. names of pattacrars; r. nd occupiers, cist payable, and sourcr: of irrigation. The impugnt'rl o-der dated 31.03.201g passed by the ller.;pondent No.2 records thi t the land in question is fallow/pacltri a, rvith no crop particr rl:u s; r:n tered in Columns lg to 24 of the pa;ranies. These facts r.lear.i.r establish that the petitioner is noL < nt itled to claim Ac.1.0() gr.s assigned to Bantu Swamy as his adoptire laughter, and that she lrrts alienated part of her own assigneri land, thereby violatir: g thc assignment conditions.

6- Th. i ir,rve rrndings satisfy the requirements lb - c,ancelarion of the assignrrLent granted in favour of the petitloner, a,; her actions are in r,:clat.ion of the policy guidelines laic down by the Governllcrlr irr G.O.Ms.No.14O6 dated 2S.O7.lg1g zrrLd [he statutory

-.*.,-ry--,::-:'_

:l

.7

7

t r

E i

authorities have considered the entire material and passed reasoned orders. Therefore, the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal inlrrmities warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is devoid o[ merits and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

/

SD/. SRI V. HARI PRASAD EPUTY R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'l . one CC to SRt pAgHAM RAVTNDRA REDDY, Advocate [opUC]

2 lyq CCs to-GPJOR ASSTGNMENT, High Court forthe State of Tetangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3 Two CD Copies

BSR

SS

9A!4.

h r !

I I l I

it

HIGH COURT

DATED:091AU2025

ORDER

WP.No.10764 of 2019

1 Ha STq r,:
(4
(
q
p
o
O 0 B l\JN ius o
t
D
.e1., p,41 ;, tli
-::=:= =- )''

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION,

WITHOUT COSTS

\ ;1

,4\g^"{

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Chain of revenue orders resuming Ac.4-00 gts of assigned land in Sy.No.671 of Suryapet Village and Mandal: order in Proc.No.B/8024/16 dated 19.12.2016 passed by respondent No.4 (Tahsildar), confirmed by respondent No.3 (RDO) in Appeal No.D2/131/2017 dated 06.05.2017 and by respondent No.2 (Joint Collector) in Revision Case No.F2/1904/2017 dated 31.03.2018, on grounds of transfer of assigned land and non-cultivation in violation of patta conditions.¶18
Administrative revenue authorities, Suryapet (Tahsildar; Revenue Divisional Officer; Joint Collector) · 31.03.2018
Prior proceeding
Ac.3-00 gts in Sy.No.671 of Suryapet Village was assigned to the petitioner (recorded as pattadar) vide assignment patta proceedings bearing a partially illegible number (printed as 'No.G/ ).58212OO1') dated 31.05.2001.¶42
Prior proceeding
Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.671 was assigned to Bantu Swamy, stated to be the petitioner's maternal uncle; the petitioner claims that Bantu Swamy, having no issues, adopted her and she succeeded to that land, becoming owner of the total Ac.4-00 gts.¶42
Prior proceeding
On VRO/Mandal Girdawar verification reporting that the land was kept fallow since allotment (pahanies Columns 18-24 showing fallow), respondent No.4 (Tahsildar) initiated an enquiry under Section 3(2) of the POT Act, 1977 and issued a notice dated 07.10.2016 stating that the assignee had violated assignment conditions by not cultivating the land.¶46
Prior proceeding
Form-I and Form-II notices were issued to the petitioner and the original assignee under Proceedings No.B/8024/2016 dated 31.10.2016, on the ground that the petitioner acquired the assigned land in violation of assignment conditions; as the original assignee Bantu Swamy had died without legal heirs, the notice was affixed on the land in the presence of witnesses.¶46
Prior proceeding
In response, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 15.11.2016. After conducting an enquiry, respondent No.4 passed the resumption order in Proc.No.B/8024/2016 dated 19.12.2016 finding that the petitioner had sold Ac.1-05 gts to one Bollam Venkatamma, W/o. Raju, was neither pattadar nor related to the original assignee, was in unauthorised possession of Ac.4-00 gts, and that both petitioner and assignee violated G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958; the lands were resumed to Government custody.¶46
Prior proceeding
The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 4-A of the POT Act, 1977 before respondent No.3 (RDO), who dismissed it vide Proceedings No.D2/131/2017 dated 06.05.2017, observing that she had admitted receiving the Ac.1-00 gts assigned to Bantu Swamy but produced no documentary proof of legal heirship, admitted alienating Ac.1-05 gts to Bollam Venkatamma, acted in violation of assignment conditions and Section 3 of the POT Act, 1977, and accordingly upheld the resumption order.¶48
Prior proceeding
The petitioner filed a revision (printed as 'Nr>.Ir.2,'lgo4l2OlT', corresponding to Revision Case No.F2/1904/2017) before respondent No.2 (Joint Collector), invoking a provision of the POT Act, 1977 printed illegibly as 'Section aB(l)'. The revision was dismissed by order dated 31.03.2018, holding that the petitioner had alienated a portion of the land assigned in her favour, failed to establish she was the adopted daughter or successor-in-interest of the original assignee, and placed no evidence that the land was under cultivation.¶56
Prior proceeding
Within the writ petition: petitioner's I.A. No.1 of 2019 sought suspension of the resumption proceedings, and interim orders dated 04-06-2019 directed respondents not to interfere with possession of the land; by I.A. No.1 of 2023 the respondents sought vacatur of those interim orders.¶33