Nimma Saritha Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

Nimma Saritha Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed without costs: the Tahsildar's resumption order in Proc.No.B/8024/16 dated 19.12.2016 and the consequential orders in Appeal No.D2/124/2017 dated 06.05.2017 (RDO) and Revision Case No.F2/1901/2017 dated 25.11.2017 (Joint Collector) were set aside; respondents directed to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, pay compensation and complete them within four months of receipt of the order, and not to interfere with the remaining land without due procedure.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent No.4-Tahsildar's resumption of the petitioner's assigned land (Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.671, Suryapet) in Proc.No.B/8024/16 dated 19.12.2016, upheld in appeal and revision, on the ground of violation of assignment conditions (keeping the land fallow / failure to cultivate) after 41 years from the 1975 assignment, is legally sustainable. +2 more

Court's answer

The resumption proceedings rested on shifting grounds - the Form-II notice alleged the petitioner was a transferee of the assigned land while the counter asserted failure to bring the land under cultivation within three years - demonstrating that the respondents sought to acquire the land without paying compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

Ratio / Principle

Assignees of government lands are entitled to compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners, even where assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta though resumption is for a public purpose; the larger Bench decision in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer v. Mekala Pandu squarely applies to the facts of this case.

Key takeaways

The power of resumption of assigned lands cannot be extended beyond a reasonable period, in any event not later than five to six years; even within that period, resumption must be preceded by inspection by the authorities and notice to the parties concerned, as held in B.Adinaraganda Murthy v. Collector.ratio¶90
The power to cancel a D-Form patta or resume the land must be exercised within a reasonable time, as held in Jinka Chandragudu v. Joint Collector; after the lapse of several years the respondents have no authority to resume the lands on flimsy grounds.ratio¶111
In the instant case the land was assigned in 1975 and the impugned resumption orders were issued on 19.12.2016 on the ground of violation of assignment conditions after 41 years; the findings of the cited judgments squarely apply, rendering the resumption unsustainable.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (K. Sarath, J., W.P. No. 44252 of 2017, decided 03.09.2025): Resumption of assigned land after long lapse is unsustainable and triggers compensation at full market value. The Tahsildar, Suryapet resumed Ac.1.00 guntas of assigned land in Sy.No.671 (671/5), Suryapet (assigned in 1975) on 19.12.2016 citing violation of assignment conditions (land kept fallow per G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958 / Section 3, Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977), with the resumption upheld by the RDO (Appeal No.D2/124/2017, 06.05.2017) and the Joint Collector (Revision, 25.11.2017). The Court found contradictory grounds (transferee allegation in the Form-II notice versus failure-to-cultivate claim in the counter) and observed the respondents wished to avoid compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act. Applying the larger Bench ruling in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer v. Mekala Pandu (assignees are entitled to compensation equal to full market value even where land is resumed per patta terms), B.Adinaraganda Murthy v. Collector (resumption power cannot extend beyond a reasonable period, not later than five to six years, and requires prior inspection and notice) and Jinka Chandragudu v. Joint Collector (D-Form patta cancellation/resumption must occur within a reasonable time; no authority to resume on flimsy grounds after many years), the Court held resumption after 41 years unsustainable. All impugned orders were set aside; the respondents were directed to initiate proceedings under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, pay compensation and complete them within four months, and not to disturb the petitioner's remaining land without due procedure. No costs.

[³³⁰²¹

tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

WRIT PETITION NO: 44252 OF 2017

Between:

Nimma Saritha, W/o Late Sriramulu, Aged about 35 years, resident of Suryapet Town, Suryapet District, Telangana state.

...PETITIONER

AND

State of Telangana, Rep. by Prrncipal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The Joint collector, Sueyapet, suryapet district, Telangana State-

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, suryapet District, Telangana State.

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 [Vlandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in passing order in Proc. No. B/8 024116 Dt.19-12-2016 as confirmed by the respondent No.2 and 3 in Revision Case No. F21190112017 by order dated 25-'l 1-2017 and Appeal No.D2l124l2O17 Dt.06-05-2017 respectively directrng to resume the assigned agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1.00 in Survey No. 671 (671151) of suryapet Village and [,4andal, Suryapet District from the petitioner on the alleged ground that there was violation under Sec.3 of A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Adaptation Telangana) (Act 9/1977) as the same is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction besides being violative of Atlicle 14,21 and 300-4 of the constitutron of lndia and consequently set aside the impugned order being null and void

l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WPMP. NO: s4856 0F 2017)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r :ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cr r rt may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession ( f the petilioner's land in an extent of Ac.0'l .00 in Survey No. 671 (671151) ol ;uryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District by suspending the proceedings o the respondent No.4 in Proc-No. BlB024l16 Dt.19-'12-2016 as confiimed by the re spondent No.2 and 3 Revision Case No. F21190112017 by order dated 25-' 1-2017 and Appeal No.D2112412017 Dt.06-05-2017 respectrvely pending disp I ,al of the above wnt petition

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

Between:

State _^{of Telangana,} .Rep.^{by Principal Secretary,F evenueDepartment,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The Joint collector, Sueyapet, suryapet district, Telangz r a State.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, suryapet Dist ct, Telangana State.

The Tahsildar, Suryapet, suryapet District, Tel-angana S t rte.

...PETtTtONt RS/RESPONDENTS

AND

Nimma Saritha, W/o Late Sriramulu, Aged about I years, resident of Suryapet Town, Suryapet District, Telangaria state.

...RESPC) IDENT/PETITIONER

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the cir: rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders d1.26-12-2017 passed in W.p.l,/.f) No. 54g56 of 2Oj7 in W.P. No. 44252 of 2017 and dismiss the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PASHAM RAVINDRA REDtr' Counsel for the Respondents: SRI HOHD. HABEEBUDDD|t,I

AGP FOR ASSIGNME !T

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

WRIT PETITTON N0.44252 of 2Ol7

ORDER:

This writ pctition is filed qurt:stioning the action of the respondent No.4 in passing the ordcr in Proc.R/8O24l 16, dared L9.12.2O I6 as confirmed by the re spondent Nos.3 ancl 2 in Appeai No.D2/ 124 /2017 , dated 06.05.2017 arrd Revision Casc No.F2 llgol /2017, datcd 25. Ll.2O17 rcspcct.ivcllz, clirccting to resume the assigned agricuitu ral lancl of thc petitioner admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.0O g,rntas in Sy.No.67 I (62 ll5l) situated at Suryarpet Villzrge and Mandal, Suryapet District as arbitrary ancl illegal and rcquested to set asidc the impugned orders.

l{eard Sri^pash:rm Rarvindra Reddy, icarned counsel lor the pctitioner- arrd Mr. Mohd. Habeebuddinlearned Assistant Governmcnt pleader for Assignment appearing for the rcspondents and perused the material on record.

\ \

--^\T1

w.P No 442.52 of 2S#'t

3 Learned Counsel for the petition .r submits that the Governlr:ent has assigned the iand ac r re asurit-rg to an extenl" of Ar-. 2_OO tn Sy.No.67I situatcr.l rt Sury,:lpet in favour of the maternai grandfather of pr itroner r-ramely lat-c Chitarnalla Venkat aiah (Q \zenkarah. r', I o has one son D^^r by name papaiah and daughter I rr(,ritlt. 1A. Alt1l. his demise, the petrtioner being the <iaughtt.r ot. Pooizrmma :rnd saici paPaiatr had succecded Ac. 1 OO r rch and they havc becn cultivating the land b1'raisrng crr.1 s like pziCdy, reed gram and Jowar etc. The respondent:; Itave issued paIta certifica te No.(i/ 1 582 / 2OO 1 clatecl c6.200 i ln favour of the mothcr of petitioncr, her nalIlc. \ as rntt t a ted rn the revcnue records, pattadar pa ssbooks ar r I titlc dr:r:ds

r.r.crc also issLrr:cl in hr:r lavour and srnce t hcn t hc_r.' ar-c in posscssion and cnjoyrlcnt of. thc said land t;r cultivating the same. While it being so, after a lapse ol : I .'ears of assignment, the respondent No.4_Tahsildar issLr d Form-iI

no tice ciated 31.10.2016 stating that the pettl Onel qrilg four-rd to be the transleree of the assrgneri lartcls irr contrqysp[i6n of thc Provtsions of sub_sectr I |2) o1'

3

SK,J W P.No.44252 of 2017

Section 3 of the Telangana Assigned Lands^{(Prohibition ol} Transfers) Act,l977 and kept the land fallow. The petitioner gave reply on 25.11.2016 along with the relevant documents. The respondent No.4^withouL considering the said documents has passed the impugned order ln Proc.No.B/8O24116 dated 19.12.2016 for resumption of the assignecl agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in S-y.No.67 l 167U 51) situated

at Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District^from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner kept the Iand fallow in violation ol the conditions as^per G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.O7.1958. Questioning the^said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Ollicer and the sarne^was dismissed vide Appcal No.D2l 124 /2017 dated 06.05.2017. againsl u,hich the petitioner filed revision and the same was also dismissed in Revision

Case No.F2l l9ol l20 l7 dated 25.1 l.2Ol7^.

.I

SI(,J \ I \o.J1252 oi 2017

4 I.earncd Counsel for the petitr, ltcr further

submits that thc pe titioner cultivateci the srt r ject larnd lor the last 19 vcars, as such thc laird cani.tot 1,, r-csumr_'cl on thc vaguc allcgation that the land t<epr allou'.^-l'hc impugncd orders \vcre passed withr,.rut cor sidering the procedure ol the A.P.Assigned Lands 1f,r:hibiLiorr of 1'ranslels) Ac-.t. 1977 (for short 'the Act, l97l . lr.hich is a soci;rl lvellarc lcsisl ation

J Learned Counsel lor thc petitio ler [ut.tltcr submlls thz.rt Ll-ir: pahanies lor t-he years i9()^{- ()8} 1() 2()l3I^.1, t o whicl-. thc rcsponclcnts are rcfcrring. cannot be taircn inl.o consideruition since the assignmr r t lvas rlone in thc vcar 1975, rnuch prior to the said dar,r zrs such the condition o1- u,ithin three years from r I r: date of assierrrnr:n1 ol thc land cannot_ be said as vio atcci bv the pctitioner. Ttre initiation of impugned a<:ti- 1 i,s pur.cll u,ith a vicu, to avoid payment of comp. lsatlon by acquirir-rg thc land and requestcd to allow the ,,rit petil ion by sctting aside thc irlpugncd orders.

5

S K",, W.P.No.41252 o'i 20)7

The learned Assistant Government Plead.er for Assignment basing on the counter liled by thc respondents would submit that the subject land was originally assigned to the mother of petitioner vide Proc.No.G/ 1582l2OOt dated .06.2OO1 under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No. l406 Dt.25.07.1958 subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The Government has identified that the assigned land u'as not brought into cultivation by the assignee or any ol'thc iamily members since the date of assignment whicir is in violation of conditions and as per the entries rnarcle in the pahanies of Suryapet Village from 200 1 to till datc, the subjecr iand was recorded as 'Padava'i.e., left lallorv, and in view of the same, notice was issued to the petitioner. After considering the explanation of the petitioner and after thorough enquiry, the respondent No.4 has passed resumption order on thc ground that the subject land was never cultivated since the datc ot assignmcnt and as per the said order, the subjcct land was taken over possession '-..by the respondent No.4 under a cover of panchanama

)-

??:-.-++*

(11

--:r E-

./^I No.,1.12511 ot20l7

datcd 21.1i1.2016 by evicting tht pctitilrneiSubsequenth', the said order of resumpl on was also confirmed by thc respondent No.3 in Appeal No.D2/ 124 l2()17 dated 06.05.2017 and 1I e responclent No 2 in revision vidc No.F2/ 19Ol I 17 datt r 25.11.2017 He lurther submits that the entries madr: n the perhani shou' t hat the pctiti<lner is in illegal pos. -'ssion ol thc assignr:d land oI ihc original assigne,:r i.c. Cl-rcvula Poolamma and thc petitioner has not lilcd : r v evidence lo sh<>lr' that hor,, shc got the said land a t d she ttevcr cr-rltivalcd thc saici 1and. She furthcr sul rrits thart thc entrres made in the pahani of Suryapet Vrl age fronr^1.1-re year. 1975 to till date shows that the sulr:ct lancl r'r,as kerpt la1lou' sincc 1he date of assigttmc^' . and^Ire vcr brought into cultivation. He further sult: its that the assignment patta was cancelled and t iancl \vas resumed on behalf ol the^(iovernment anrl herr:forc. the petitioner is not entitlcd for any relief anc requestcd to disrniss the writ petition.

Yr\

7

SK,.,I W P No 142 52 of20l7

7 After hearing both sides and on pursuing the records, this Court is of the considercd view that there is no dispute with regard to the assignment of subject land to the assignee by the respondent authorities in thc year 1975. It is the contention of the petitioner that ever since the date of assignment, her grandfather as ll,ell as petitioner was cultivating the land. While it being, the respondent authorities have issue d notice to the petil-ioner on 31.10.2016 as to why the subject land cannot be resumed for keeping the land fallow. For lvhich the petitioner submitted her reply, hou,ever, the respondent No.4 without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, only basing on the report of Mandal Girdawar, resumed the land on 19.12.2O16. The petitioner aggrievecl by thc resumption orders, fited appeal vide Appeal No.D2/ 124 l2ol7 and the same was dismissed by the respondent No.3 on 06 05.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Revision vide Revision Case No.F2 /7901/2017 and the same was also dismissed on 25.ll.2Ol7 by the respondent No.2

-_t

-*,.'.'.'''r---41.--<

U

S Ii,,J '\ I' No..1.1252 ot 20 i7

\ -\

)

On perusal of the impugned resumprir .r proceedings vide Ref.No.B/8024/16, dated tg.t2.2016 ssued by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, the sole grou . I is that the petitio.er failed to bring the land into ctLrr 'ation *.ithin three .ycars lron-r the date of assignmen I Whereas in Form-ll noticc datcd 3l.10.2016, it was sr rted thzrt the petitioner r.r,zr s found to be the tralsferee of the assigned lands and in thc colrnter, it rva s stated tha t the assigncd land was not ltroughl under cultivation withr I three years in violation of thr: conclitions as per G. . .Ms.No. I406 dated ?5.07.1c)58. It clea.rly shows that thc resl)ondents have taken cot)lra stand in their counter. Th: responrlents want to acquire the land from the petitit ner r,rrithout paving compcnsation rrndcr the Lald Acquis I on Act.

'lhe Assigr-rees of the Government lancl,. are e.titler,l to pavment ol- compcnsation equivaler-rt to thr lu11 market valuc of thc liurd and other benefits on : tr r,vith full ov,.ners of tht: land even in cases where the as r igned lands are taken possessior-i of by the State in ac<:. dance r,,,,ith

,:*.Jii;-.

sN

M-

!"',,.-.--_.-

I

S K.J W.P.No.44252 of^'2O17

the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose as held by larger Bench of this Court in Lo.nd Acquisition Offtcer-Cum-Reuenue Divisional OfJicer us. Mekalq Pandut and the facts ol the said Judgment squarely apply to the instant case and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows:

' 1 I I . In the circumstances, rl,e hold that the assignees of the gouenlment lands ore entitled to paAnerlt o_f compensation equiualent to the full market ualue of the land and other beneJits on par wtth full ou.tners of the lctrtd et,en in cases where the assigned lands ore laken possesslori o/ bg the State in accordance uith the terms of gront or patto, though such resumption is for a public purpose. We lurtlrcr hold that euen in cases where the State does not irtuoke the couenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for sttch public purpose and resorts to acqutsition of the lattd tuuler the prouisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. the ossignees shall be entitled to compensation as otuners of the land and for all other consequential benefits und_er tlrc prouisions of the Land Acqu[sition Act, 1894. No condiion incorporated in patta/ deed of ctssignment sha operaLe cts a cLog putttng any restiction on the ig ht of the assignec to claim full compensation as oLuner of the land."

(Emphasis odded)

'^{2oo4(2) ALT} s46

-\ -s,Fi!*i

to

S I(..J ',. I'No 4.1252 oi 2017

\

r0 Furt^jrr:r. thr: pou,er of resumptir r ol assigned lands cannot be extended beyond reasonal le perio<l, ln anv c.,cnt, not later than five ro six years. F' en within five to six -Vears \'helt thc po\ rer has to be c i rrcised, therc must bc necessary ir-rspection by the aullL rrities on the basis of u,hich a der:ision to resume the I I rds be l aken prcr:cCing a noticc to the partics corrcerncd r; held br, this Court irr B.Adinaraga.nd Murthg v. Collec.ora ancl the relevant portion of lhc said^judgment is as ir .lows

"18. C)rr lhrs qround alone, I mzrsr..j., , the porrr,,r o-f re stirr tltti,orr r:,f rt.ssigrted lands cannot be est n_ded betlortd a reasottable, peiotl, lrt anu c-uent, not latet hart fiue to six rleors. Duert utttlttt.,fitte to sLx years uthen t e pouter has to be cxc:rcisccl. tlrcre rnusl be necessory ir. oection ltq the authoities on tlrc bosis ol uthich a d.ecisir t to resunte. the lcLtrds be takerL S>receding o notice to the pa , es <:oncent-ed.

Sr:r'1ro,r I ( 1 )(b) of the AcL enuisages thot ,uetL if there is uiolatuyt oJ' cetlaln tenns a.nd conditions ; I the assi/tee the Lutrd sLioll lx'restored to the assiqnee t,t his leqaL lrcirs rts tl;<, r'ase rnatl be antl if there is a uiolaho, of the tet nts <tf ossigrtntent Jor the second time - it u_toukl e open lo the authoities to resutne the lands, I hatr. tlu,refor,z. no hesitatiott lo scLrl tltat tl-te respondents hatt to authotltA to resunlc tlrc lancls after long lapse of more rt., n 34 Aears ot1

t

' 1999 (6) ALr 122 ISB)

--f:r-a , rl.:iit=;i-

1l

SK..J W. P. No.44252 of 20 l7

some JlimsA grounds. TLe fi.rst^question is^answered accordingly.^"

I 1. Further, this Court in Jinkq Chendragttdu U Joint Collector$ power to cancel D-Form^{Patta or resume} the land by the Revenue authorities must be^exercised within a reasonable time. The relevant potion of the^said Judgment is extracted as under:

't l. Be thctt as it mag, the petitioner^{claims that tlrc} lctnd in question tuas assigned to him in^the Aeor^{1976, and} if according to respondent No.3, the land, as^{per tlrc} coru)itions of D Fonn patto, Luas^{requiredto bittgthe lartcl} under cultiuation tuithin three gears from^{the date of tts} issuance, ond if the petitioner failed to bring^{the landtutcler} cuLt[uation, utithin three gears from^{the dateof its issuance,} then respondent No.3, ought to haue^{issued notice callit.cl} upon him to shottt cause cs to^uhAlhe D-Form patta should not be cancelled,^{immediatelyafte r} expiry of three gears from the date of^{issuance of the} D-Fonn pattct, and insteod of doir-tg^{that, he has issued the} sltout cause rtotice on 17.02.2005^{i.e., afterlapse of nectrly} 30 years. He Jufther submitted that^{since respondentNo.3} lssued the show cause notice after lapse of^{nearlg 30} Aeors,^{it tuill ttot be possible to ascertainas to uhetherthe} land ttas brought under cultiuation u,tithin^{three years} frorn the date of issuance of D-Fonn patto or not.

r 2o1L (s) ALT 119 \

t2

I i

SK,J .^,. No.4425il oI2017

1 2. 'l'his Court in Sekhai AruncL iurnai u. Dist. Collecl <tr, Visctlchapctnarn and Madaman,' i Ch[rutasutamA (clicd) p'p1' l,Rs. u. .loint Collector, Chittoot. lrcLd that potuer [o rtutce'l tha D Fonn patta or tesume t 'e lartd. Ltq thc rer)entle ottlltoilies must be exerciserl ut. in e. reasonable, tinte rnrl that if D-Fonn patt(1 uas tot: t cancelled. the qrourtrls on utlLich it ts sought to be cr rcelled houe to stated. lo enable the Gssiqnee lo slzorr. ccu)se. In the ittstctnl case, the D Fonn pcttto u)as can.c€t td cLit.er ktpse o.l' 30 rlcttt's. anc) the shou' cause notice issu:, I it t.hat regard, clicl ttot s1'tr:ctf1.1 the ground on tuhich tltt, DK'[ tuas to be ccutcelle,rl, and in.ia.ct, it is ue,rg clear Jrort the procercdin.gs a.s r{)(,11 us lh<, record procluced, t.he str.; tt ca.u.se noticr:, uthtt'lt led to pclss[ng of canceltalion : D Fonn patla granlcd ht .fat,ortr cJ' tlle petitloner, is n the itstctr-tce oJ resltortclent Nos. l attd 5. Itlerel,a becau:;r 'espctnclen.l Nos. ,1 anrl :i ltat,e been. in po.sse-s-sion o/ lia: tnd in qttestton sinr:e seueral 11eurs, il is not open .fc r tltent kl seek r:antceLLc.ition of 1;allc grartted lo sorne otlu,r ,erson uncJ seek assicltLtrLcrrl of the sarne hr their Jauour.''

{Er phasis added)

12, In t hc insLru-rt case the subject land as: gne d lan([ to thc assigncc ln thc -vear, 1975. The resJr ndents havc issucd tl-re preserrt impugned resuinptl( r orders oil 19.12.2O16 on thc grouncl of violation () assignntent conditi()ns after 41 years. The lindings ,f 1l-le above .J,clgrnt'rrts squai'c,l' ilppl-y to lhc lacts .f tl-r: i,stant cil:;r.

7

t3

SK,J W. P. No.44252 of 20 l7

as this Court categorically held that after lapse o[ severa] years, the respondents have no authority to resume the lands on flimsy grounds.

In the instant case, the respondents resumed the land after a lapse of 41 years. In view of the same, the respondents have to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and pay compensation to the petitioner No.2, as held by the larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition OfJicer-Cum-Reaenue Divisional OfJicer u. Mekala Pandu (Supra- 7).

In view of the above findings, this'writ petition is allor,r,'ed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the

No.4 1n proceedings 1n No.BlBo2a/b dated 19.12.2016 and also the consequential orders passed by the respondent. No.3 and 2 in Appcal No.D2/124/20 17 dated 06.05.2017 and Revision Case No.F2/ l9?l /2017 dated 25.1I.2017 respectively and the respondents are directed to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings by follou,ing the procedure as conterrrplated

'.'..j.:?'1-+d.

14

SK $,. '. No..l:1252 oi201

under the Right to Fair Compensation and lransparencl. in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Rer; ttlement. Act, 2013 for payment ol compensation to the petitioner for acquired lan ci and complete the same rr, ,hin four (4) months frcm the date of receipt of copy of 1lL s order and if the respondents r,vani. to acquire the remain ng portion of land which was in possession of the petitrc rer, thev are

dircctcd not t,o interferc with thc said and without lollowing due proceciure, T1-rere shall be tL, order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitrons, il anr., pendir g shal1 stand clo sed.

That Rule Nisi has^{beenmade absolute a:; rbove}

Witness THE HON'BLETHE^{CHIEF JUSTICE APARE i 'l KUMAR SINGH} WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD^{DAY OF SEPTI: IBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FI!I

"SD/SRINIVASA REDDY AI; " iISTANT REGISTRAR

i/TRUE COPY//

L-

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary,^{Revenue Department,Secret rriat.T.S.,Hyderabad-} 2. The Joint cbllector, Sudyapet,^{suryapet district,Telanrlna Slatg} 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Suryapet, suryapetDil lrict, lelangana State} 4. The Tahsildar, Suryapet,^{suryapet District, TelanganaI tate.} 5. One CC to SRI PASHAM^{RAV|TOnR REDDY,Advcc rte} [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP^{FOR ASSIGNMENT} ,High^{Court for I r Stateof Telangana} at Hyderabad [OUT]

Two CD CoPies

B IVI BS $N

.l

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310912025

ORDER

WP.No.44252 ot 2017

,'.''f;tHE-Se'E
;6'
03 r.iB 2026
,:))
* *
PATC

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITI- OUT COSTS

",t"
B$-
)/a\t

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondent No.4-Tahsildar's resumption of the petitioner's assigned land (Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.671, Suryapet) in Proc.No.B/8024/16 dated 19.12.2016, upheld in appeal and revision, on the ground of violation of assignment conditions (keeping the land fallow / failure to cultivate) after 41 years from the 1975 assignment, is legally sustainable.¶107
The court held
The resumption proceedings rested on shifting grounds - the Form-II notice alleged the petitioner was a transferee of the assigned land while the counter asserted failure to bring the land under cultivation within three years - demonstrating that the respondents sought to acquire the land without paying compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.ratio¶74
2.
Whether assignees of government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners where assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta.¶75
The court held
Assignees of government lands are entitled to compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners, even where assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta though resumption is for a public purpose; the larger Bench decision in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer v. Mekala Pandu squarely applies to the facts of this case.ratio¶82
3.
Whether, having resumed the land only after a lapse of 41 years, the respondents must instead acquire the land through formal land acquisition proceedings with payment of compensation, and whether the impugned orders ought to be set aside.¶112
The court held
Since resumption occurred after a lapse of 41 years, the respondents have to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and pay compensation to the petitioner, as held by the larger Bench in Mekala Pandu.ratio¶112

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Resumption order in Proc.No.B/8024/16 dated 19.12.2016 passed by respondent No.4-Tahsildar resuming the petitioner's assigned agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.671 (671/5) of Suryapet Village and Mandal on the ground of violation of assignment conditions (land kept fallow / failure to bring under cultivation), as confirmed by respondent No.3-RDO in Appeal No.D2/124/2017 dated 06.05.2017 and by respondent No.2-Joint Collector in Revision Case No.F2/1901/2017 dated 25.11.2017.¶74
Tahsildar, Suryapet (respondent No.4); confirmed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet (No.3) and Joint Collector, Suryapet (No.2) · 19.12.2016
Prior proceeding
Per petitioner's counsel, the assignment was made in favour of the petitioner's maternal grandfather late Chitamalla Venkataiah.¶42
Prior proceeding
The Court recorded that there is no dispute regarding the assignment of the subject land to the assignee by the respondent authorities in the year 1975.¶67
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.4 issued notice dated 31.10.2016 asking why the subject land could not be resumed for keeping the land fallow.¶67
Prior proceeding
The Form-II notice stated that the petitioner was found to be a transferee of the assigned lands in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (text garbled by OCR; phrase continues into the next paragraph).¶44
Prior proceeding
The petitioner submitted a reply on 25.11.2016 with relevant documents.¶47
Prior proceeding
As per the respondents' counter, the subject land was originally assigned to the petitioner's mother vide Proc.No.G/1582/2001 (dated 06.2001 as garbled) under G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958, subject to conditions therein.¶57
Prior proceeding
Pahani entries of Suryapet Village from 2001 onwards reportedly recorded the subject land as 'Padava', i.e., left fallow.¶57
Prior proceeding
Without considering the petitioner's explanation and basing only on the Mandal Girdawar's report, respondent No.4 resumed the land on 19.12.2016.¶67
Prior proceeding
Possession of the subject land was taken over by respondent No.4 under cover of a panchanama (date garbled in the record), evicting the petitioner.¶57
Prior proceeding
The petitioner's appeal (Appeal No.D2/124/2017) was dismissed by respondent No.3-RDO on 06.05.2017.¶67
Prior proceeding
The petitioner's revision (Revision Case No.F2/1901/2017, printed variously due to OCR) was dismissed on 25.11.2017 by respondent No.2-Joint Collector.¶67
Prior proceeding
Interim orders dated 26.12.2017 had been passed in W.P.M.P. No.54856 of 2017 in this W.P.; respondents filed I.A. No.1 of 2018 seeking their vacation and dismissal of the writ petition.¶30