Telangana High Court
Dantuluri Avinash And 7 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 5 June, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.6844 OF 2022
ORDER:Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel representing M/s.Bhardwaj Associates, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Harender Pershad, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General for the respondents. Perused the record.
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the endorsement of Respondent No.2-District Collector, Sangareddy District, contained in letter No.D1/829/2020 dated 20.10.2021 rejecting to delete the land admeasuring Ac.28.22 Guntas in Survey No.146 of Kothlapur Village, Sangareddy District (hereinafter referred as to 'the subject land') from the list of prohibited lands under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908 as illegal and to set aside the impugned endorsement.
3. The petitioners are claiming that they have purchased the subject land in Survey No.146 of Kothlapur Village, Sangareddy Mandal and District, under different registered sale deeds (pending registration). The details of the extent, survey number, etc., are specifically mentioned in a tabular form of this writ affidavit.
4. When the registration of the sale deeds was kept pending on account of the endorsement contained in letter No.D1/829/2020 of respondent No.2-District Collector, petitioners have filed writ petitions vide W.P.No.9880 of 2021 and batch. Vide Order dated 28.04.2021, this Court disposed of the said writ petitions setting aside the impugned endorsement and remitted the matter back to respondent No.2-District Collector to consider the issue of deletion of the subject land from the list of prohibitory properties uninfluenced by the decision dated 18.01.2021 communicated vide endorsement dated 03.04.2021. This Court further observed that it is open to the petitioners to place before respondent No.2-District Collector any additional submissions and the legal position as it stands now, within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said Order. Respondent No.2-District Collector shall consider the claim of the petitioners objectively, including additional submissions, if any, made, and take a decision as warranted by law duly considering the submissions of the petitioners and by assigning reasons in support of the decision. The entire exercise shall be completed within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
5. In compliance with the said Order, respondent No.2-District Collector vide endorsement contained in letter No.D1/829/2020 dated 20.10.2021 rejected the request made by the petitioners seeking deletion of the said subject land from the prohibitory list. Impugning the said endorsement, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition.
6. Vide Order dated 21.04.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.6844 of 2022, this Court granted interim Order directing the respondents to register the pending sale deeds concerning the subject land and release the registered sale deeds. However, such registration shall be treated as a provisional one and the same shall be subject to the outcome of this Writ Petition. The petitioners are directed not to alienate the subject land without permission of this Court.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the said interim Order, the petitioners herein have preferred an appeal vide W.A.No.420 of 2022. Vide Order dated 20.07.2022 a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ appeal with an observation that the pleadings are complete and therefore a request can be made to this Court to hear and decide the related writ petition expeditiously.
8. Both Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Harender Pershad, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General made their submissions extensively and also placed reliance on the Judgments, which will be considered in the below paragraphs.
9. The contentions of Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners are fourfold and the same are as follows:
i) To apply the provision contained in Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908 and consequently prohibit the registration of sale of the assigned lands by the Government to landless poor persons subject to the condition of non-
alienation.
ii) Impugned endorsement of respondent No.2 only refers to the Special Laoni Rules of Laoni Rules, 1950, which are issued under Section 172 of the Telangana Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli. The Laoni Rules do not anywhere specify that the grant thereunder is non-alienable. The rules are to be read in conjunction with Section 58 of the Telangana Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli.
iii) The reasons mentioned in the impugned
endorsement is more in the nature of
imagination/assumption. There is no condition of inalienability in the grant of the year 1953. If any condition of inalienability was incorporated, it could have got mentioned in the impugned endorsement. Further, the reasons mentioned in the impugned endorsement are baseless.
iv) There is no consideration of the observations/findings and directives given by this Court in the Order dated 28.04.2021 in W.P.No.9880 of 2021.
10. Sri Harender Pershad, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General contended as follows:
i) The lis involved in the present writ petition is clearly covered by the Judgment dated 31.12.2021 in W.P.No.202 of 2010.
ii) The assignment was made to the original assignees in the year 1953 exercising powers vested in Government under Section 172 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.
iii) In the case of land assignment under Laoni Rules, the auction is conducted in respect of the land to be assigned and highest bidder in the laoni auction is given the patta certificate.
iv) In the case of land assigned under Special Laoni, the beneficiaries are selected by the Tahsildar concerned, who are poor landless persons who could not participate in the laoni auction and purchase the land.
v) In the present case, the land being claimed by the petitioners, was originally assigned under Special Laoni Rules under Laoni Rules, 1950 which were on free of cost and meant for bringing up the land to agricultural use and to provide livelihood to the assignees by way of agriculture.
vi) Thus, the lands in question are assigned by Government to the poor landless persons on free of cost and shall be treated as Government land. Therefore, the same are placed under the prohibitory properties.
vii) The said aspects were considered by respondent No.2 in the impugned endorsement. He has issued the impugned endorsement by considering the observations, findings and directives of learned Single Judge in the Order dated 28.04.2021 in W.P.No.9880 of 2021 and there is no error in it.
11. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, the only issue to be considered is:
Whether the inclusion of the subject property under the prohibitory list by respondent No.2-District Collector is in accordance with law and also the law laid down by this Court, if any, to what relief the petitioners are entitled ?
12. It is relevant to note that when the subject land was mentioned in the prohibitory list, the petitioners have filed writ petitions vide W.P.No.9880 of 2021 and batch. This Court disposed of the said writ petitions vide Order dated 28.04.2021 considering the rival contentions of the parties and also the principle laid down by this Court in various writ petitions. Relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment are extracted below:
"18. The view taken by the Division Bench in Letter sent from Plot No. 338 and view taken by learned single Judge in Akkem Anjaiah is consistently followed. Therefore, prima facie, there is merit in the contentions of the learned senior counsel. It is not in dispute that Loani Rules, 1950 did not prescribe the non-alienation condition on assigned land. This was introduced for the first time in the year 1958. Prima facie, unless a notification under Section 58-A of Telangana Area Land Revenue Act was issued, no restriction can be imposed on alienation of the land. Further, as held in Akkem Anjaiah the District Collector can not shift the burden on petitioners to prove that there was no non-alienation clause. As held by this Court in the decisions noted above, prior to1958 there was no restraint on alienation of assigned land. If that is so, it is not just and proper to harass subsequent purchasers by merely looking into status of land as SARKARI. The District Collector ought to have conducted the enquiry more objectively.
19. Therefore, it is apparent from the material placed on record that there was no proper exercise undertaken by the District Collector. He ignored material on record without recording reasons. By merely referring to the status of the land as Government land, and pattas were granted under the Laoni Rules, the claim was rejected. It thus amounts to non application of mind.
20. The District Collector ought to have looked into the reports of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer. If he was not satisfied by those reports, he ought to have thoroughly looked into the record independently to form an opinion on the status of the land. It is within his competence to refuse to delete the subject land from the prohibited list of properties if laoni patta was burdened with non-alienation clause. As held by this Court in Akkem Anjaiah, the District Collector cannot shift the burden on applicants to prove non-alienation clause, more so, when in the first round transactions were allowed to be registered. The District Collector has also not looked into the provisions of the Telangana Area Land Revenue Act and the Laoni Rules and the law declared by this Court. He failed in discharging his statutory obligations effectively.
21. Having regard to the law laid down by this Court as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is elementary for the District Collector to thoroughly verify the record to ascertain as to how patta was granted to the vendors of vendors of petitioners under Laoni Rules while considering the request of petitioners to delete the subject extents of land from prohibited list.
22. In the representation made by the petitioner in W.P.No. 9988 of 2021 on 12.3.2021 though he was trying to make a claim that patta was granted to the vendor under Rule 9 in Form-G and there was no non- alienation clause, he has not placed before the Collector the pattas granted to vendors of vendors of petitioner nor has he highlighted the legal position as evolved by several decisions of this Court as sought to be urged in these writ petitions. Same is the case with other petitioners.
23. Having regard to the infirmities noticed in the decision making process, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader agree to remand the matters to the District Collector to consider the issue denovo.
24. Having regard to said submissions, the impugned endorsements are set aside and matters are remitted to the District Collector to consider the issue of deletion of subject properties from the list of prohibited properties uninfluenced by the decision dated 18.01.2021 communicated vide endorsement dated 03.04.2021. It is open to petitioners to place before the District Collector any additional submissions and the legal position as it stands now, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The District Collector shall consider the claim of the petitioners objectively, including additional submissions, if any, made, and take a decision as warranted by law duly considering the submissions of petitioners and by assigning reasons in support of the decision. The entire exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
13. It is also relevant to note that a Division Bench of this Court in State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department v. Dakoji Durgapathy 1 had an occasion to deal with the subject matter including provisions of Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for brevity 'POT Act') and Laoni Rules. In the said case, assignment of lands was not under the Laoni Rules, 1954 and there was no condition of non- alienation. On examination of the facts therein and also considering the provisions of the POT Act and Laoni Rules, Division Bench held that a land to be treated as an assigned land, within the meaning of POT Act, should be burdened with a condition of non-alienation. In the absence of the said clause, the property cannot be included in the prohibitory list.
14. Assailing the said Judgment dated 10.08.2021 in W.A.No.91 of 2020, the State has preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8615 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Judgment dated 10.08.2021 in W.A.No.91 of 2020 Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file review petition vide Order dated 10.10.2022.
15. In Dasari Narayana Rao v. Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer 2, learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, considered the conditions of POT Act, 1977 in paragraph no.43 and the same is relevant, so, extracted below:
"43. From the text of Form-G, the inference is compelling that prior to the revised assignment policy (1958), under the unamended 1950 Rules, the assignment could be with or without a condition as to prohibition of alienation. If the assignment specified a prohibition, then and then alone must a grantee not transfer the occupancy without the previous sanction from the Collector."
16. In Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary v. Mallarapu Jangaiah 3 (W.A.No.202 of 2010 dated 31.12.2021) a Division Bench of this Court considering the fact that the land in question 2010 (4) ALT 655 2021 SCC Online TS 1846 was having a clause restraining the grantee to transfer the land without previous sanction of the Collector. No sanction was obtained at any point of time and therefore the same cannot be transferred.
17. In view of the same, few provisions of the relevant acts for the purpose of deciding the lis in this writ petition such as Section 58 of the Land Revenue Act (Act No.VIII of 1317 Fasli) is relevant and the same is extracted:
58. An occupancy right to land shall be deemed to be heritable and transferable.
58-A (1). Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding section the Government may by [Official Gazette] notify the respect of any village or tract of [the area to which this Act extends] that the right of occupation of any land under section 54 given after the date of the notification shall not be transferable without obtaining the previous sanction of the [xxx] [Collector] [xxx].
18. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 172 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, Laoni Rules, 1950 were issued and Rules 15 to 24 are relevant, the same are extracted below:
"15. No lands in the special area notified under Section 58-A of A.P. (Telangana Area) land Revenue Act, shall be assigned except in accordance with the following rules:--
(a) The object of the special laoni is to make land available in certain areas to such landless persons of agricultural and backward classes as may be notified from time to time, and who have not sufficient means to purchase land either at the ordinary laoni auctions or otherwise. The selection of the most deserving applicant should be made by Tahsildar after due publicity in the village or at the place fixed for the allotment proceedings.
(b) Special laoni, proceedings may ordinarily take place twice a year in the months of April and September, and may also take place at other times when the Tahsildar is visiting the locality.
16. In making selection for special laoni preference shall be given to persons who reside in the village, but do not possess any patta or shikmi rights in any land in the village or elsewhere or who have insufficient land but possess bullocks and agricultural implements. Persons who are already cultivating lands are 'asamis' or 'bataidars' shall be given preference over other labourers.
18. The selection by the Tahsildar of any person for special laoni shall be confirmed by the Collector within a month from the date of the proposal for such selection, after satisfying himself that there has been no material irregularity in the proceedings.
19. The allottee of the land shall prepare the land for cultivation within three years of being placed in possession and commerce cultivation of the land thereafter. The pattadar may be rejected by the order of the Collector for breach of any of the above conditions :
Provided that he has been served with a notice calling upon him to comply with the conditions which he has violated and he fails to comply with it within three months of the date of service thereof. If lands has been transferred in contravention, the conditions, the Collector may eject the transferee.
20. After sanction has been accorded by the Deputy or Assistant Collector in the case of ordinary laoni and by the Collector in the case of special laoni, the Tahsildar shall obtain an agreement from the person to whom land is to be allotted and after recovering any amounts due shall give him permission in writing to occupy the land.
23. The special laoni provisions shall apply to all applications for assessed land which are not reserved. The Tahsildar may grant pattas under the rules laid down above.
24. A register shall be maintained as in Form I in respect of all lands granted under Special Laoni Rules."
This procedure is prescribed in Laoni Rules.
19. Section 2(1) of POT Act deals with definition of assigned land and it is extracted below:
2. Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
1) "assigned land" means [lands or house sites assigned] by the Government to the [landless or homeless poor persons] under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non-
alienation and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless or homeless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings; and the word "assigned" shall be construed accordingly.
20. Therefore, to declare or treat a land to be assigned land within the meaning of assigned land as per POT Act, there should be a condition of non-alienation. In the earlier endorsement dated 18.01.2021 there is no consideration of the aforesaid rules and law laid down by this Court in the above referred Judgments. Therefore, this Court vide Order dated 28.04.2021 in W.P.No.9880 of 2021 and batch directed respondent No.2-District Collector to consider the said aspects and decide the said matters afresh.
21. Sri Harender Pershad, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General has produced kasra pahani for the year 1954-1955, in respect of the subject land, wherein it was mentioned that land in Sy.No.146 (Old Survey No.243) of Kothalapur, Sangareddy District, is a gairan land. He has also filed copy of District Collector file No.A/1/375/52 along with notes and list of 27 serial numbers in respect of said property i.e., land in Survey No.146 (old No.243), wherein, it was mentioned that land in Survey No.146 of Kothalapur Village admeasuring 251.22 is 'gairan' and 26 families, their details are mentioned therein, as they belongs to BC (Backward Class), they may be given land shown there and the recommended acreage of land given is figured adjacent to their names. The said recommendation was agreed on 16.08.1952. Referring to the same, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the said assignment was made under Special Laoni Rules and the object of the same is to make land available in certain areas to such landless persons of agricultural and backward classes as may be notified from time to time, and who have no sufficient means to purchase land either at the ordinary laoni auctions or otherwise. The selection of the most deserving applicant should be made by the Tahsildar after due publicity in the village or at the place fixed for the allotment proceedings.
22. Laoni Rules, 1950 are very clear that when the land is occupied with prior written permission of the competent authority on payment of an up-set price equal to 16 times of the land revenue, the permanent patta will be granted and the same will be treated on par with the other patta lands and can be transferred.
23. On the other hand, the Government had made special provisions under the Special Laoni Rules for the landless persons and backward classes, who are not capable of purchasing lands in laoni auctions wherein the lands will be assigned to such persons on free of cost so as to bring the Government vacant lands into cultivation and providing livelihood to the landless persons. The said lands are not alienable as the very purpose of bringing the Special Laoni Rules in existence is to provide opportunity to do agriculture and to derive its benefits from the lands so assigned. If the lands are made alienable, the very objective of the Government to provide lands to the landless persons will be defeated. The title of the said lands always vests with the Government and they are prohibited from alienation to the third parties. Therefore, considering the said aspects respondent No.2-District Collector rejected the request made by the petitioners.
24. It is relevant to note that the scope and ambit of the Telangana Area and Land Revenue Act, and Laoni Rules was considered, in letter sent from plot No.338 by a Division Bench of this Court. On consideration of the same and also G.O.MsNo.1406 dated 25.07.1958, the Division Bench held that unless a notification is issued as required by Section 58-A of the Act in respect of any village or tract that right of occupation in land under Section 54 of the Act given after the date of notification shall not be transferable without obtaining previous sanction of the Collector, no restriction can be imposed on alienation.
25. In Akkem Anjaiah v. Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District 4 considering Mr.Maqdom Shareef was assigned land on 20.12.1956 under the Laoni Rules, 1950. The said assignee sold the land in favour of the petitioners therein under 2011 (5) ALT 420 registered sale deed dated 17.02.1967. Alleging that sale was in violation of the assignment conditions, show cause notice was issued on 14.02.2008 to show cause why land should not be resumed under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. The petitioners therein contended that even if the land was treated as assigned under the Laoni Rules, much before G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958 was issued, there can be no restriction on alienation. Considering the said aspects learned Single Judge held that in the absence of non-alienation clause, placing the said property in prohibitory list is illegal. Challenging the said order, an appeal vide W.A.No.1728 of 2013 was filed and the same was dismissed by Division Bench confirming the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12198 of 2016 preferred against the Writ Appeal was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 07.10.2016.
26. Considering the said aspects, in the Judgment dated 28.04.2021 in W.P.No.9880 of 2021 and batch, this Court directed respondent No.2-District Collector to conduct thorough enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There is no consideration of the principle laid down in the aforesaid Judgment and the only contention of respondent No.2-District Collector is that the assignment was under Special Laoni Rules, therefore the subject land cannot be alienable and if the subject land is alienated, the very object of the Laoni Rules will be defeated. The Government is having right over the subject land. Therefore, the impugned endorsement is in not on consideration of the aforesaid principle, findings and directives of this Court in the aforesaid Order dated 28.04.2021 in W.P.No.9880 of 2021.
27. As rightly contended by Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the rules do not anywhere specify that the grant thereunder is non-alienable. The rules are to be read in conjunction with the Telangana Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli and Section 58 of POT Act.
28. An occupancy right to land shall be deemed to be heritable and transferable. In Section 58(A) of the POT Act which is applicable to the notified areas, the occupancy is not transferrable without obtaining the previous sanction of the Collector. Therefore, the parent statute clearly specifies laoni rules, shall be heritable and transferrable. Thus, the parent statute i.e., Telangana Land Revenue Act permits transferability of the occupancy. The Special Laoni Rules are part of Loani Rules, 1950. Rules 15 to 20 do not contain any condition of non-alienability. On a combined reading of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, Laoni Rules, 1950 and Section 5 of POT Act, it is crystal clear that in the case of grant under Laoni Rules or Special Laoni Rules, there is any statutory prescription of condition of inalienability of the land covered by the Laoni patta or special laoni patta. Therefore, in respect of the subject properties section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act did not attract. The said principle was also held by two division benches viz., Letter sent from Plot No.338, Parvant Nagar, Hyderabad v. The Collector and District Magistrate, Rangareddy District 5 and State of Telangana (1 supra).
29. There is no mention about the condition of non- alienability in grant of the year 1953 in the impugned endorsement as held by this Court in W.A.No.91 of 2020 dated 10.08.2021. The Government is the custodian of the record and if any condition of non-alienability is incorporated, it get mentioned in the impugned endorsement. There is no such mention in the impugned endorsement. Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned endorsement is not on consideration of the aforesaid provisions of law and the principle laid down in the aforesaid Judgments. Therefore, the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside.
30. Accordingly, the impugned endorsement of Respondent No.2-District Collector, Sangareddy District contained in letter No.D1/829/2020 dated 20.10.2021 is (2008) 5 ALT 313 (DB) set aside. However, Respondent No.2-District Collector shall take steps to delete subject land from the prohibitory list as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, so that respondent Nos.4 to 6 shall entertain the registration in respect of the subject land.
31. With the aforementioned observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 05.06.2023 YNK HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.6844 OF 2022 Dated 05.06.2023 YNK
Wp_22947_2009 and batch
SNJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P. No. 22947 of 2009 and batch
Between:
P.Chand Kiri and others
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 05.06.2023
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
_________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2
Wp_22947_2009 and batch
SNJ
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 22947 of 2009 and batch
% 05.06.2023
Between:
# P.Chand Kiri and others
..... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana and others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri D.Prakash Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Revenue
? Cases Referred:
1. 2019 (12) SCC 40
2. 2009 (4) ALT 1
3. 2021 SCC online TS 946
3
Wp_22947_2009 and batch
SNJ
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 22947, 25260, 26482, 27742 ,
28491, 29250 , 29270 of 2009,
W.P. No. 602, 1045, 3103, 3980, 16410,
17624, 21628, 32427 of 2010,
W.P. No. 5663 of 2011,
W.P. No. 12267 of 2012,
W.P. No. 20650 of 2014
W.P. No. 4447, 8133 , 42534 of 2015
W.P. No. 27783 of 2018
COMMON ORDER:Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are different, but the respondents are one and the same. In all the writ petitions the subject matter is one and the same and hence, the common order is passed.
3. In all the writ petitions, the relief sought for by the petitioners is not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective plots of land purchased out of the approved layout on the strength of NOC granted by the Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ Revenue Officers by means of registered documents in respect of land in Survey Nos. 197/2, 197/29, 197/31 and 197/49 situated at Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
4. The case of the Petitioners in all the writ petitions, in brief, is as follows :
a) Land in Survey Nos.197/2 to 197/29 and Survey Nos.197/31 to 197/49 was allotted to the respective respondent no. 6 to 13 and their fore fathers, situated at Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District as they were in possession and enjoyment of the land right from 1930 onwards.
b) In the year 1961, bandobast had been conducted, that the allottees were in possession of the said subject lands for more than 30 years and bandobast charges were collected.
The land was sub-divided and they were cultivating the land. Due to rapid development, the allottees of the land were unable to cultivate, and therefore converted the said land into plots and made nearly 3000 plots.
Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ
c) The allottees obtained sanction of layout on 15.03.1974 and sold the plots to various persons and the petitioners herein too had purchased the plots through respective registered sale deeds.
d) During the year 1991, the Mandal Revenue Officer (will be referred to as MRO hereinafter) transferred the rights and in the year 1993 the Sub-Registrar, Hayathnagar sought for some clarification from the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer (will be referred to as RDO hereinafter).
e) Both MRO and RDO have submitted reports stating that the names of allottees were already implemented in the revenue records and there is condition preventing the grantees to transfer or sale of the land and there is no bar for registration of the land in Survey Nos.197/2 to 197/29 and 197/31 to 197/49.
f) The petitioners purchased the land and are near completion of the construction. In the year 1996, the District Collector addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Hayathnagar, directing not to entertain any registration in Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ respect of the aforesaid land and directed the Tahsildar to resume the land.
g) Respondents from 6 to 13, filed W.P.No.24130 of 1996 before the High Court questioning the letter of the Collector directing the Sub-registrar, Champapet not to entertain registration.
h) W.P.No.24130 of 1996 was disposed off with certain specific observations given below vide order dated 19.04.2008.
In view of the same the direction issued by the District Collector to the extent of resumption of land cannot be sustainable and to the said extent is liable to be set aside.
If any, violations are noticed, it is for the Mandal Revenue Officer to issue notices to the persons in whose favour the lands were assigned or the subsequent purchasers, who purchased the lands from the original assignee, listing out the violations and nature of the assignment for making appropriate representation by the persons to whom notices have Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ been issued for resumption of land and the claims put forth by them to be considered and appropriate orders to be passed in accordance to law.
i) If any, order adverse to the interest of the petitioners or subsequent purchasers is passed, until the period of appeal is over, the land shall not be resumed. In view of the amendment of Section 22 A of the Registration Act, it is always open to the MRO to intimate the Sub Registrar that the list of survey numbers, within his jurisdiction, which were never assigned land and it is for the registering authority to consider the same at the time of registration of the plots. The plots were purchased by the petitioners' right from 1993 to 1999 by means of registered documents.
j) Petitioners herein came to now that the MRO issued notices to the writ petitioners in WP.No.24130 of 1996 and sought for their explanation and the Mandal Revenue Officer is said to have passed orders against them.
Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ
k) The petitioners are the bonafide purchasers and have paid valuable consideration after perusing the approved layout. MRO had not issued any notice to the petitioners. MRO called for particulars from the Sub Registrar, Champapet about the registration of the documents in respect of the land.
l) The Sub Registrar, Champapet through letter No.44/2009, dated 07.02.2009 informed the Tahsildar stating that there are 1874 entries (documents) entered in the sale transactions as per the records. As evident from the title deeds filed herein, it is clear that there are nearly 3000 plots and the petitioners have purchased the plots, the Mandal Revenue Officer has not issued any notice having called for the particulars from the Sub Registrar Office and in the guise of the orders said to have been passed behind the lack of the petitioners without notice to the petitioners is instigating the respondents 6 to 13 to interfere with the possession of the petitioners.
m) In the affidavit filed in W.P.No.24130 of 1996, the petitioners therein along with Respondent Nos.6 to Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ 13 herein categorically admitted that they have parted the land to the third parties on the strength of the NOC issued by the authorities, but with their Malafide intention and the behest of the Mandal Revenue Officer, to dig the land changing the nature of alignment of the plots.
n) Persons who are parties to the writ petition on noticing the said illegal activities had in fact lodged a report with the police on 22.10.2009.
o) The MRO has not issued any notice to the petitioners herein and petitioners are deprived of opportunity to represent their case though they have purchased the plots from the lay out by paying the requisite stamp duty as well as registration charges. The respondents having sold the land cannot interfere or change the nature of the land.
p) The Mandal Revenue Officer had not issued any notice to the purchasers having obtained full particulars about the sale transaction and intends to dispossess them without giving any opportunity, which is contrary to the directions Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ granted by the High Court. If the Mandal Revenue Officer had issued notice to the petitioners herein, petitioners would have submitted the necessary explanation along with the requisite documents i.e., more particularly the approved lay out in the year 1974, no objection certificates issued by the Revenue Department stating that there is no condition preventing the allottees for transferring the land.
q) Having parted with the land, the unofficial respondents herein, having asserted before this Court that they have converted the land into plots as early as 1974 and the layout was approved on 15.03.1974 and being sold to various persons, the proceedings initiated by the Collector ordering the Mandal Revenue Officer to resume the land is contrary to the record.
r. Basing on the NOC, the Sub Registrar, Champapet entertained documents, registered documents as stated earlier before issuing notices the Mandal Revenue Officer called for particulars from the Sub Registrar. The Sub Registrar furnished the information stating that there are 1874 registered documents at the office. The MRO having obtained particulars did not choose to give any notice to the Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ petitioners and intends to dispossess them without providing any opportunity as directed by the High Court. Hence, the present writ petitions.
5. PERUSED THE RECORD :
i. The interim order of this Court dated 27.10.2009 in WPMP No.29797 of 2009 in W.P.No.22947 of 2009 reads as under :
The Respondents are directed not to dispossess the Petitioners from the subject lands without following due process of law.
ii. The interim orders of this Court dated 27.10.2009 are made absolute and the vacate petition is dismissed vide orders dt. 16.02.2012 in WVMP No.4739/2010 in WPMP No.29797/2009 in WP No.22947/2009, observing as follows :
"Having heard the Learned counsel for both the parties I do not find any justifiable reason to vacate the interim order dated 27.10.2009 at this stage. Accordingly, the interim order is made absolute and the vacate petition is dismissed".
Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ iii. The relevant portion of the order dated 09.04.2008 passed in WP No.24130 of 1996 is as follows :
In view of the above, the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahasildar has to decide whether the nature of the assignment made in favour of the original assignee is under Circular No.14 or under the Laoni Rules and if it is covered by Laoni Rules whether it is issued under General Laoni Rules or Special Laoni Rules; whether any conditions were imposed prohibiting alienation and transfer of the assigned lands at the time of granting assignment in favour of landless poor persons under Special Laoni Rules, or if it is assigned for market value under General Laoni Rules and the same is prohibited from alienation or not; and whether the transfer, if any, made prior to coming into force of Act 9 of 1977, the transferee is protected under sub-section (5) of Section 3 or not, have to be decided by the Mandal Revenue Officer uninfluenced by any of the directions issued by the District Collector in the impugned letter.
Against any order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer an appeal lies under Section 4 A of the Act to the Revenue Divisional Officer and further revision lies to the District Collector. The District Collector, who being the revisional authority has issued such directions to resume the land, is not competent to exercise revisional jurisdiction since he had already taken a decision to Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ resume the land. In view of the same, the direction issued by the District Collector to the extent of resumption of land cannot be sustainable. The same, to the said extent, is liable to be set aside.
If any violations are noticed, it is for the Mandal Revenue Officer to issue notice to the persons in whose favour the lands were assigned or the subsequent purchasers, who purchased the lands from the original assignee, listing out the violations and nature of assignment whether it is under Circular 14 or under Laoni Rules, whether it is General Laoni Rules or Special Laoni Rules, including the conditions imposed, if any, with regard to the inalienability and transfer at the time of grant of assignment for making appropriate representation by the persons to whom the notices have been issued for resumption of land. On such notice being issued with all the details, it is open for the original assignee or subsequent purchasers to put forward their claims contending that the prohibition contained under Act 9 of 1977 is not applicable. On such objection being filed, after providing an opportunity to substantiate their claims, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall pass speaking order. If any order adverse to the interests of the petitioners or subsequent purchasers is passed, until the appeal period is over, the land shall not be resumed. In view of the amendment of Section 22 A of the Registration Act, it is always open for the Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ Mandal Revenue Officer to intimate the Sub-Registrar the list of survey numbers within his jurisdiction, which are never assigned lands and it is for the Registering authority to consider the same at the time of registration of the plots, if any, made. In view of the said amendment, no further adjudication is called for on the direction issued by the District Collector calling upon the registering authority not to entertain the registration, since it is governed by the statutory provisions.
With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
iv. The counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.3 in W.P.No.22947 of 2009 and para 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 there under read as under :
"4. In reply to para 2 of the affidavit it is submitted that it is denied that the allegation of the petitioners that the bandobust was conducted in the year 1961 and charges were collected thereon. It is further submitted that I verified the records and there is no bandobust conducted.
5. In reply to para 3 it is submitted that it is not true to say that the respondent No. 3 transferred the right in the year 1991. The respondent No. 3 is not the Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ competent authority to transfer the rights without permission of the government and it is also denied that the respondent NO. 3 and Revenue Divisional Officer, Rangareddy East Division issued clarification with regard to the nature of the land and stating that there is no ban for registration of the land in Sy. No. 197/2 to 197/29 and 197/31 to 197/49. The then Mandal Revenue Officer and the then Revenue Divisional Officer have not given any such type of clarification to the Sub-Registrar.
7. In reply to para 7 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the allegation that the Mandal Revenue Officer has not issued any notice to the purchasers having obtained full particulars about the sale transactions and intends to dispossess them without giving any opportunity is factually incorrect. I submit that the original assignees have been issued notice and a general notice in the notice board has been put up in the notice board of the gram Panchayat. I submit that in fact, the petitioner No.11 in the present writ petition submitted his explanation to the general notice and the same has been considered by the third respondent and he had passed the final order. Aggrieved by the orders of the 3rd respondent in file No. B/1738/08, dated. 29-08-2009 other persons also filed W.P. No. 29250, of 2009. The petitioner No. 2 in the said Writ Petition filed explanation on 01-09- 2008 and similarly in W.P. No. 1045 of 2010 Ayesha Bin Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ Zubair 2. Ozair Bin Bader 3. Subaib Bin Bader and Saida Sultana who were writ petitioners No. 7, 8, 9 and 10 respectively have filed their explanations on 25-08- 2008. The explanations are also filed for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. Therefore the claim of the writ Petitioners that they have no notice before issuing the impugned proceedings by the 3rd respondents is incorrect and far from truth.
8. The allegation that there is no condition incorporated in the original assignment that they have been prevented from transferring the land is also factually incorrect. One of the condition incorporated in the assignment order issued in favour of the original assignees is that they cannot transfer the property and at best they can enjoy the same by the original assignee or their legal heirs. The third respondent followed the direction issued by this Hon'ble court and passed the impugned order by recording elaborate reasons on all the issues framed and decided against the assignees. The petitioners having purchased the assigned land which is prohibited under law, cannot claim as a bonafide purchaser. This Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again held that the assigned land purchased by a landless poor is also hit by the provisions of Assignment policy of the Government in Telangana Area. In the instant case, the third respondent passed an order resuming the land under Act 9/77.
Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ
9. In reply to Para 8 of the affidavit, it is submitted that mere execution of a document which was registered by the incompetent authority would not create any title in favour of the petitioners. The very transaction of sale is prohibited and the purchase of the land by the petitioner from a person who has no title, is a void transaction. The allegation that there is no condition preventing the allottees from alienating the land is factually incorrect. Some of the assignments issued in favour of the individuals are available in the file and there is a specific condition incorporated way back in the year 1961 that the grantee is not empowered to transfer occupancy right without the sanction of previously obtained from the Tahsildar. The allegation that the Revenue Divisional Officer issued letter dt. 10.3.93 addressing to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar that there is no condition preventing the grantee for transfer of sale of the land thus granted is without verifying the records such a letter was addressed. Infact, one of the condition incorporated in the written permission to occupy the land issued in Form-G under rule 9 (g) of Special Laoni Rules, 1950 debars the original assignees from transferring the land. So, the letter addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dt. 10.3.93 is contrary to the conditions of the assignment issued by the then Tahsildar, 1961. The said document is the basic document on which the original assignees claim their right over the property. The Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ number of documents registered by the Sub-Registrar have no effect at all. The un-official respondents have illegally converted the assigned lands in Sy. NO. 197 of Nadergul village and the layout was got approved by the Grampanchayat, Nadargul misrepresenting the facts in the year 1974, which is improper and Gram panchayat has no power to approve the layout in the assignment land.
v. Counter affidavit filed by the 3rd Respondent, in particular, para 7 in W.P.No.12267/2012 reads as follows :
" 7. It is submitted that incompliance with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court the respondent No.3 took up the case for enquiry and issued notices to all the assignees, their legal heirs, the subsequent purchasers and also affixed the notice in the Gram Panchayat notice board of Nadargul village for the information of all the affected parties who have not received the notices. Keeping in view of the Hon'ble High Court orders framed the following issues.
1. Whether the nature of the assignment made in favour of the original assignees is under circular 14 or not?
2. Whether the nature of the assignment made in favour of the original assignees under the General Laoni Rules or Special Laoni Rules? 3. Whether any conditions were Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ imposed prohibiting alienation and transfers of the assigned lands at the time of granting assignment in favour of the landless poor persons under Special Laoni Rules!
4. Whether the assignment made for market value under General Laoni Rules?
5. Whether the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer Act) is applicable or not?
6. Whether any transaction prior to the coming into force of the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act 1977 U/s. 3 (5) of the Act applicable to the Purchasers or not?
7. It is submitted that some affected parties offered their explanations and on perusal of the explanations and also material available on records and as per rules in force and keeping in view of the orders of the Hon'ble court passed the orders in proceedings No. B/1738/08, dated. 29-08-2009 answering the issues.
ISSUE NO. 1: It is clear that there is no Eksala permission to the original assignees and there is no proof of payment by the original assignees of the upset price equivalent to 16 times land revenue fixed by the authorities. As per Section 58-A of the A.P. (TA) Land Revenue Act. 1317 F there is no sanction of the District Collector and there is no official gazette notification in respect of the village of Nadergul. Therefore the assignment made in favour of the original assignees Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ cannot be said to have been made under the Circular No, 14 dated. 08-11-1954. Even as per the records available, there is no material to show that the assignment was made under the said circular. The issue No. I is answered accordingly and hence, not applicable to the present case, ISSUE NO. 2, 3 & 4: Regarding grant of pattas to the original assignees under General Laoni or Special Laoni Rules 1950 it is submitted that as per rule 2 of the laoni rules the persons will submit application to the Tahsildar concerned in writing for occupation of the land. After due enquiry if it is decided to dispose the land by auction the auction amount of the land and the trees standing thereon shall be recovered from the allottee (U/s. 9 (g) and one copy of the permission shall be given to the allottee.
With regard to grant under Special 1 aoni Rules 1950, rule 15 of the rules reads as "No lands in the special areas notified Us. 58-A of A.P Telangana Area Land Revenue Act, shall be assigned except in accordance with the following rules:
(a) The object of the special faoni is to make land available in certain areas to such landless persons of agricultural and backward classes as may be notified from time to time and who have not sufficient means to purchase land either at the ordinary laoni auctions or otherwise. The selection of the most deserving applicant Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ should be made by the Tahsildar after due publicity in the village or at the place fixed for the allotment proceedings.
Admittedly the assignment was made to the landless poor persons in the year 1961. AS on that date, the revised assignment policy vide GOMs.No. 1406, dated 25-07-1958 had come into force and therefore the authorities assigned the land to the landless poor persons as per the GOMs.No. 1406. It is submitted that the explanation submitted by the original assignees and purchasers stating that the assignment was granted under Rule 9 G of the Laoni Rules is not correct. The assignment was made in the year 1961 as per the existing G.O.Ms. NO. 1406. The claim of the assignees and purchasers that they got the permission from the then Mandal Revenue Officer. Saroor Nagar Mandal in his Proc No. 2/Spl/91, dated. 10- 07-1991 and the Revenue Divisional Officer addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer in turn addressed to the Sub-Registrar on 20-01-1995 stating that the land in survey number 197/2 to 197/29 and 197/31 to 197/49 Nadargul village was allotted according to the allottees from transferring their rights and issued NOC is not correct. It is relevant to note that the Mandal Revenue Officer Saroomagar has not sanctioned any permission to transfer the occupancy rights and the proceedings mentioned by the assignees and the letter addressed to the Sub- Registrar on 20- Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ 01-1995 are also not available in the records maintained by the office. Hence the cam if the assignees and purchasers that the land was assigned to the original assignees under the general laoni rules and special Laoni rules is not correct Accordingly, issue Nos 2, 3 and 4 are decided against the original assignees and purchasers.
ISSUE NO. 5 & 6: As per the revenue record), the land in Survey No. 197 47 persons who were landless poor persons in the year 1961, for the purpose of agriculture. As per the available record, the following statement shows the of Nadergul village to an extent of Ac. 289.09 gis, is classified as "Gairan Sakari". Out of the said extent, an extent of Ac 252.04 gts, was assigned to assignment particulars;
S.No. Sy.No. Name of the Assignee Extent of land (Ac.
01. 197/2 Chitram Seethaiah 11.06 Mekam Sudershan Mekarm Ramesh
02. 197/3 Karre Achaiah 7.22
03. 197/4 Karre Chinna Narsaiah 5.23
04. 197/5 Chtram Seethaiah 6.31
05. 197/6 Karre Pedda Buchaiah 3.30
06. 197/7 Karre Achaiah 4.29
07. 197/8 Kommu Yadaiah 5.37 Chirra Maisaiah Eswaraiah, Ganesh
08. 197/9 Indrasenapathi 5.36
09. 197/10 Mera Ramaiah 6.11
10. 197/11 Karre Pedda Buchaiah 3.06 Vanka Balaiah Vanka Jangaiah Vanka Narsimha Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ Vanka Kistaiah Vanka Babaiah
11. 197/12 Vanka Pochaiah 9.19
12. 197/13 Karre Istari 6.23 Kommu Yadaiah Kommu Venkataiah Kommu Laxmaiah
13. 197/14 Kommu Mallaiah 6.38
14. 197/15 Karre Chinna Pochaiah 8.25
15. 197/16 Puttagalla Rajaiah 1.22
16. 197/17 Yerra Mallaiah 5.26
17. 197/18 Karre Mysaiah 3.24
18. 197/19 Puttagalla Pochaiah 8.05
19. 197/20 Chirra Mysaiah 7.05 Chirra Kistaiah Chirra Yadaiah
20. 197/21 Kare Chinna Narsaiah 1.25
21. 197/22 Karre Pedda Buchaiah 3.08
22. 197/23 Chitram Seethaiah 3.23
23. 197/24 Karre Chinna Pochaiah 3.02
24. 197/25 Karre Achaiah 3.03
25. 197/26 Puttagalla Laxmaih 2.18
26. 197/27 Kommu Yadaiah 8.16
27. 197/28 Dappu Laxmaiah 3.10
28. 197/29 Chitram Seetaiah 2.07
29. 197/31 Karre Pedda Buchaiah 0.37
30. 197/34 Karre Chinna Narsaiah 1.13
31. 197/35 Puttagalla Pochaiah 9.17
32. 197/36 Veeraiah 2.39
33. 197/37 Dandu Ramaswamy 3.33
34. 197/38 Chakali Jangaiah 5.10
35. 197/39 Kata Savraiah 4.29
36. 197/40 Pasula Arlaiah 3.32
37. 197/41 Kummari Rajaiah 2.18
38. 197/42 Agaiah 2.18
39. 197/44 Goundla Yellaiah 4.31 Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ
40. 197/45 Dadige Ramaswamy 6.19 Sadula Ramulu
41. 197/47 Gunni Laxmaiah 4.28
42. 197/48 Vanka Papaiah 12.36 It is a fact that the land in survey number 197 of Nadergul village is Government land as per the village revenue records. It is also a fact that the land is assigned to the landless poor persons of Nadergul village in the year 1961. The original assignees, in contravention of the terms and conditions of the G.O.Ms.No. 1406, dated 25-07- 1958, have sold to the third parties who in turn converted the lands into residential plots and sold the same for non agricultural purpose. It is clear that the original assignees and purchasers have contravened the section 3(1) and (2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977. Once the land is assigned to the landless poor persons, the land remains to continue as assigned land and it should be under enjoyment of assignees or their legal heirs. Hence, the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands Act is applicable to the present case. As all the transactions took place only after commencement of the Act, section 3 (5) of the Act is not applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the said issue nos 5 and 6 are applicable to the present case vi. Section 2(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prevention of Transfers) Act, 1977 reads as under :
Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ
2. Definition : 1. "Assigned land" means (lands or house sites assigned) by the Government to the (landless or homeless or homeless poor persons) under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non-
alienation and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless or homeless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings; and the word "assigned" shall be construed accordingly. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION :
6. The learned Senior Counsel Sri D. Prakash Reddy put-forth his submissions on behalf of the Writ Petitioners in all the cases. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.22947/2009 and W.P.No.12267 of 2012. The Learned Special Government Pleader Sri Harender Pershad appeared on behalf of the Respondents in all the cases and putforth his submissions and placed reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.22947/2009 and W.P.No.12267/2012 in his submissions.
Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ
7. It is the specific case of the Petitioner's that originally the land in Sy.No.197/2 to 197/29 and Sy.No.197/31 to 197/49 was allotted to the Respondent No.6 to 13 and their forefathers, situated at Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District, as they were in possession and enjoyment of the land right from 1930 onwards. The bandobast was conducted in the year 1961 wherein it was specifically stated that the allottees were in possession for more than 30 years and the bandobast charges were collected and the land was sub- divided and they were cultivating the land. Subsequently the said subject land was converted into nearly 3000 plots and further the allottees obtained sanction of the layout on 15.03.1974 and sold the plots to various persons and the Petitioners herein also purchased plots by means of registered sale deeds. In the year 1996 the District Collector addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Hayathnagar directing the Sub- Registrar not to entertain any registration in respect of the land and directed the Tahsildar to resume the land. Respondents No.6 to 13 along with other family members numbering 63 filed W.P.No.24130/1996 before the High Court questioning the letter of the Collector directing the Sub-
Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ Registrar, Champapet not to entertain registration with certain specific pleas contending more particularly in para 9 and 10 of the said writ petition as follows :
"Para.No.9: That having complied with Law, Rules, Regulations and Bye Law in totality, the Petitioners initiated into execution of the Lay out plan approved by the GRAM PANCHAYAT by dividing the aforesaid property into plots of various dimensions as sanctioned. The Roads were laid and other necessities were attended to as required for the purposes. The Development of the lands is being attended to right from the 1991 at a full pace.
Para.No.10: The Petitioners sold the plots so made on for sale and a considerable number of plots have already been sold. The persons coming from the lower middle class of the Society are the purchasers of the Plots. Many of them have after obtaining loans from various loaning institutions like HDFC, CANFIN, LIC etc are constructing houses.
8. The said writ petition is disposed of by the Division Bench vide its orders dated 09.04.2008 setting aside the orders of resumption and directed the Mandal Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ Revenue Officer, Tahsildar, to decide the following questions :
a. The nature of assignment made in favour of the original assignee whether it is under Circular 14 or under Loani Rules?
b. Whether the orders were under general Loani Rules or Special Loani Rules ?
c. Whether any condition was imposed about alienation or transfer ?
d. When the transfers were effected and transfers are protected under Sub-Section 5 of Section 3 of the Act ?
And also observed if any violations are noticed, it is for the MRO to issue notices to the persons in whose favour the lands were assigned or the subsequent purchasers, who purchased the land from the original assignee, listing out the violations and nature of the assignment and on making appropriate representation by the person to whom notices have been issued for resumption of land and the claims put forth by them and to consider the same and pass orders. In view of the amendment of Sec.22-A of the Registration Act it is always open to the Mandal Revenue Officer to intimate the Sub-Registrar the list of survey numbers, within his jurisdiction which were never assigned lands and it is for the Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ Registering Authority to consider the same at the time of registration of the plots.
9. It is further the specific case of the Petitioners that the plots were purchased by the Petitioners right from 1993 to 1999 by means of registered documents duly paying the requisite stamp duty and the registration fee and that the Mandal Revenue Officer called for particulars from the Sub-
Registrar about the registration of the documents in respect of the land and the Sub-Registrar, Champapet through his letter No.44/2009, dt. 07.02.2009 informed the Tahsildar, stating that there are 1874 entries (documents) entered into the sale transactions as per the records. The Petitioners however have not been issued any notice having called for the particulars from the Sub-Registrar Office and the Respondent No.6 to 13 had been interfering with the Petitioner's peaceful possession under the guise of the orders said to have been passed behind the back of the Petitioners without notice to the Petitioners.
10. It is further the specific case of the Petitioners that the subject land was assigned under Rule 9(g) of Laoni Rules where there is non-alienation clause Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ prohibiting the sale, however, bandobast charges were collected, sub-division was permitted and made, supplementary setwar was issued in the year 1952 in File No.63/34/52/E, as evident from the Faisal Patti filed and the permission for transfer was sought for, clarification was also sought for and thereafter land was sold as such G.O.Ms.No.1406 is not applicable as assignment was made under Laoni Rules long prior to the said G.O. The Petitioners further specifically contend that at no point of time notices had been issued to them and the Petitioners are not at all aware of any enquiry conducted in pursuance to the orders of the Court dated 09.04.2008 passed in W.P.No. 24130 of 1996.
11. A bare perusal of the contents of the letter dt. 10.07.1991 and 14.06.1991 filed as additional material documents by the petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2021 from page 14 to 20 indicate passing of two transfer orders borne on record by the then Mandal Revenue Officer. A bare perusal of the contents of the letter dt. 10.03.1993 indicates that the then Revenue Divisional Officer Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ addressed to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar, that there is no condition preventing the grantee for transfer of sale of the land thus granted. A bare perusal of the contents of the letter dt. 12.03.1993 of the MRO, addressed to the Sub-Registrar indicates that there is no bar for registration.
12. This Court opines that the pleas of the Respondent No.3 at para 9 of the counter affidavit that the letter addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dt. 10.03.1993 is contrary to the conditions of the assignment issued by the then Tahsildar, 1961 and further that the said document is the basic document on which the original assignees claim their right over the property and that the number of documents registered by the Sub-Registrar have no effect at all and that the unofficial Respondents have illegally converted the assigned lands in Sy.No.197 of Nadergul Village and the layout was got approved by the Gram Panchayat, Nadergul misrepresenting the facts in the Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ year 1974 which is improper and the Gram Panchayat has no power to approve the layout in the assignment land, in fact strengthen the case of the Petitioners to the fact that the assigned lands in Sy.No.197 of Nadergul Village had been converted for non- agriculture purpose into house plots and sold to the individuals with due approval of layout by the gram panchayat Nadergul in the year 1974 itself. This Court opines that attempts to dispossess the Petitioners from their respective plots of land purchased out of the approved layout on the strength of NOC granted by the Revenue Officers by means of registered documents from 1993 to 1999 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.197/2 to Sy.No.197/29 and Sy.No.197/31 to Sy.No.197/49, situated at Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District, pleaded specifically by the Petitioners at para 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed by the Petitioners is totally contrary to the orders of this Court dt. 09.04.2008 passed in W.P.No.24130/1996. This Court opines that there cannot be any resumption of subject land by the Official Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ Respondents herein without following due process of law in contravention of principles of natural justice without issuing due notice or reasonable opportunity to the Petitioners to put-forth Petitioners case before the Official Respondents herein contrary to the spirits of orders of the Division Bench of this Court dt. 09.04.2008 passed in W.P.No.24130/ 1996.
13. The Learned Senior Counsel Sri D. Prakash Reddy placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of our High Court reported in 2009 (4) ALT 1, Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others Vs. P.Harinath Reddy & Others dated 01.05.2009 and in particular paras 14 & 15 which read as under :
"14. The other aspect viz. power of resumption, even if available, having been exercised after long length of time is also not permissible in view of the ratio in the decision of the Supreme Court in Ponnala Narsing Rao V. Nallolla Pantaiah And Others (2005) 11 SCC 115. It is evident that during the interregnum, several developments have taken place with reference to the lands in question and at this length of time the names of the purchasers are mutated in the revenue Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ records and respective purchaser has been enjoying the property as owner thereof for several years. Thus, even without going into the question of adverse possession and its applicability, it is evident that the petitioners have altered their position based upon long length of time, therefore, it cannot be allowed to be nullified at such distance of time. In view of that also the proceedings for resumption impugned in these matters, having not been exercised within a reasonable time, the appellants are not entitled to any relief.
15. This Court in the decision Letter Sent From Plot No.338, Etc.s (1 supra) referred to above also found that assignment, which is not made with a condition of non-alienability does not fall within the definition of assigned lands as contemplated under the Act. The grant of 1961, which is the subject matter of both these appeals, therefore, does not fall within the definition of assigned land under the aforesaid Act and as such, the said Act has no application. This Court even went further and found in the above decision that the condition of alienation can be enforced only in the event of there being a notification under Section 58-A of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act with reference to transfer of occupied lands in respect of notified villages. The said entire aspect Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ including Laoni Rules vis0a-vis revised assignment policy was duly considered by the Division Bench and it was held as follows:
"We are of the view that provisions of Act No.9 of 1977 will not be applicable to the cases where assignment were made on collection of market value of under Circular 14 except it were granted to the landless poor persons free of market value".
The ratio in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case and as such, the issues raised on behalf of the appellants in this appeal are liable to be answered against the appellants and the appeals are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. The Learned Senior Counsel Shri D.Prakash Reddy also placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment dated 10.08.2021 passed in W.A. No.91/2020 in The State of Telangana, Hyderabad and others v Dakoj Durgapathi reported in 2021 SCC online TS 946 and at paras 12, 13 and 14 of the said judgment it is observed as under:
Para 12 : The core issue which falls for consideration in this writ appeal is whether there was a condition of non-alienation or not so as to bring the subject lands under the purview of the POT Act and consequently, Include the subject Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ lands in the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
Para 13 : It is considered necessary to examine Section 2(1) of the POT Act which is extracted below for the sake of convenience:
2. Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,"
(1) "assigned land" means [lands or house sites assigned] by the Government to the [landless or homeless or homeless poor persons] under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non- alienation and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless or homeless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings; and the word "assigned" shall be construed accordingly;
The above definition makes it clear that a land to be treated as an assigned land, within the meaning of POT Act, should be burdened with a condition of non-alienation.
Para 14 : The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the pahani entries in the year 1961-62 show that Laoni Patta was granted to Mangali Narayana is devoid of merits. It is the Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ assignment patta and conditions imposed therein, which will determine the nature of the assignment. The Government, being a custodian of the revenue records including records pertaining to the assignment etc., is duty bound to produce the relevant records to establish the nature of the assignment.
15. The learned special Government Pleader Sri Harender Pershad on the other hand contends that all writ petitions need to be dismissed in view of the fact that orders dated 09.04.2008 passed in W.P.No.24130 of 1996 had been implemented.
16. The Petitioners vide IA No.1/2021 in WP No.22947/2009 bring on record certain documents. A bare perusal of the contents of the letter No.129/2009, dt. 24.04.2009, is a copy of the letter issued by Sub- Registrar under RTI Act, the said letter referring to Sy.Nos.197/2 to 29, 197/31 to 49 as belonging to Nadergul Village in particular states that MRO letter C 308/92 and RDO letter No.B1/3767/91, dated 10.03.1993 as furnished to the applicant thereunder. A bare perusal of the contents of the said Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ Lr.No.C/308/92, dt. 12.03.1993 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Hayathnagar, indicates that the grantees are in enjoyment and their names have already been implemented in Faisal Patti of the Nadergul village during the year 1989-90 basing upon sethwar issued some time back and further the said letter states that according to Rule 9(g) of Special Loani Rules 1950 there is no condition preventing the grantee for transfer or sale of the land thus granted. Therefore there is no bar for registration of land bearing Sy.No.197/2 to 197/29 and 197/31 to 197/49 of Nadergul according to Loani Rules. A bare perusal of the letter No.B1/3767/91, dt. 10.03.1993 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East Division, addressed to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal indicates the contents that reveal that grantees are in enjoyment and their names have already been implemented in Faisal Patti of the village for the year 1989-90 basing upon Sethwar some time back and according to Rule 9(g) of Special Laoni Rules 1950 Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ there is no condition preventing the grantee for transfer of the sale of the land thus granted. In view of the fact that these documents had been obtained under Right to Information Act by the said applicant, this Court opines that the plea of the Respondents that there is no transfer permission is unsustainable and false. The other documents filed in I.A.No.1/2021 are proceedings dt. 10.07.1991 and 14.06.1991 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, vide RoC No.2/Spl/91 and Roc No.1/Spl/91 respectively and a bare perusal of the contents there under indicate sanction for transfer of the occupancy rights of the applicants there under without any objection granted in their favour under Laoni Rules, 1950. Copy of the details of assignment prepared by the then MRO, copy of extract of fasil patti are all the other documents filed along with I.A.No.1/2021 in WP No.22497/2009 and the same cannot be said to have been created or manipulated, unless enquired into by giving due notice and reasonable opportunity to all concerned.
Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ
17. The assignment policy and the laoni does not prohibit alienation and it is only under the Revised Assignment Policy issued under G.O.Ms.No.1406, dt. 25.07.1958 that such a condition of non-alienability was introduced in all assignments, and the revised assignment policy aforesaid does not repeal the earlier assignments made under the laoni rules.
18. This Court opines that a proceeding under the provisions of the Act for resumption of the land can be initiated only if 4 requirements exists (i) the land must be an assigned land, (ii) that the assignment should contain a clause prohibiting alienation, (iii) that the land must have been assigned or allotted to a landless poor person and (iv) that such land must have been alienated. Unless these requirements are satisfied the competent authority cannot exercise its jurisdiction. The initial burden therefore lies on the competent authority U/s. 4 of the Act to prove that the land was transferred in violation of the conditions of the assignment/allotment and unless this burden is Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ discharged based on the relevant material the order of resumption cannot be sustained in law and in the present case the exercise as directed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dt. 09.04.2008 in W.P.No.24130/1996 needs to be necessarily followed and in the present case admittedly the same has not been followed in the present case. The Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3 at para 7 in W.P.No.22947/2009 speaks about only Petitioner No.11 of having submitted explanation to the general notice and the same as having been considered by the 3rd Respondent prior to passing of the final order. Strangely the counter affidavit filed by 3rd Respondent in the said case is silent with regard to furnishing of explanation by the other 27 petitioners thereunder and it is also admitted in para 7 of the said counter in W.P.No.22947/2009 that notice has been issued only to the original assignees and a general notice in the notice board has been put up in the notice board of the gram panchayat and the Petitioners at para 11 of the reply affidavit filed in W.P.No.22947/2009 specifically Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ contended that giving notices to the original assignees will not hold water as they have parted with their possession and that a general notice was affixed on the notice board of the gram panchayat is an invented one and the writ petitioners have no access to the said gram panchayat office.
19. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent in W.P.No.12267 of 2012, para 7 (extracted above), it is clearly admitted that the subject lands in issue had been assigned to the landless poor persons of Nadergul village in the year 1961 and the original assignees in contravention of the terms and conditions of assignment had sold the subject lands to third parties, who in turn converted the lands to residential plots and sold the same for non agricultural purpose. It is further contended by the 3rd respondent in the said counter that notices had been served on all concerned and orders of the Court dated 09.04.2008 passed in W.P.No.24130 of 1996 had been complied with and the same is factually incorrect even as per the counter filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.22947 of 2009.
Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ
20. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2009) 12 SCC 40 in Umanath Pandey & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another at paras 10 & 11 observed as under :
Para 10 : The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the best limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle b found its way into the "Magna Carta". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to "vacate, interrogate and adjudicate". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was thus stated: (ER p. 420).
"Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. 'Adam' (says God), 'where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"
Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. Para 11 : "Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice".
Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ
21. This Court opines it is fundamental to fair procedure that both sides should be heard - audi alteram partem i.e., hear the other side and it is often considered that it is broad enough to include the rule against bias since a fair hearing must be an unbiased hearing. One of the essential ingredients of fair hearing is that a person should be served with a proper notice i.e., a person has a right to notice. Notice should be clear and precise so as to give the parties concerned adequate information of the case he or she has to meet and make an effective defence. Denial of notice and opportunity to respond result in making the very decision as vitiated. In W.P.No.22947 of 2009 only one petitioner i.e. petitioner No.11 thereunder submitted the explanation even as per the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.22947 of 2009 and other twenty seven petitioners had no opportunity to even respond, and it is the specific plea of the petitioners as stated in their reply affidavit filed in W.p.No.22947 of 2009 that the general notice affixed Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ on the notice board of the Grampanchayat is an invented one.
22. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances of the case and also the interim orders of the Court dated 27.10.2009 passed in WPMP No.29797 of 2009 and the order dated 16.02.2012 passed in WVMP No.4739 of 2010 making the interim orders absolute and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2019 (12) SCC 40 in Umanath Pandey and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court at Hyderabad, dated 01.05.2009 in Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District & Others Vs. P. Harinath Reddy & Others reported in 2009 (4) ALT page 1 and the view taken by the Division Bench of Telangana High Court in W.A.No.91 of 2020, dated 10.08.2021 in the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and others v Dakoji Durgapathy reported in 2021 SCC online TS 946 on the point that it is the assignment patta, and the conditions imposed therein, which will determine the nature of assignment and the Government being the custodian of Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ the Revenue Records including records pertaining to the assignment is duty bound to establish the nature of assignment and in the present case the same has not been done and the orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated 09.04.2008 in W.P.No.24130 of 1996 had not been followed in true spirit and in fact had been violated since all the Petitioners herein admittedly were not put on notice and no reasonable opportunity was provided to them prior to passing of orders of resumption, behind the back of the Petitioners herein. The writ petitions are allowed as prayed for and the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are directed not to dispossess the Petitioners at the behest of the unofficial respondents herein from their respective plots of land purchased out of the approved layout on the strength of NOC granted by the Revenue Officers by means of registered documents from 1993 to 1999 in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.197/2 to Sy.No.197/29 and Sy.No.197/31 to Sy.No.197/49 situated at Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District, without Wp_22947_2009 and batch SNJ following due process of law. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 05.06.2023 Note: L.R. copy to be marked b/o kvrm
