G.Shankar Reddy, Karimnagar ... vs Revenue Divisional Officer, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3929 Tel

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
                  W.P.No. 22810 of 2013

Between:
G.Shankar Reddy
                                                      ... Petitioner
                            And

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar
2. The Tahsildar, Karimnagar.
3. The District Collector, Karimnagar
                                                    ... Respondents

           JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 28.07.2022


     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
                                                                     WP_22810_2013
                                             2                               SN,J




           THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                                 W.P.No. 22810 of 2013

%          .07.2022

Between:

# G.Shankar Reddy
                                                           ..... Petitioner

                                            And:
$ The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar
   and others
                                                         .....Respondents


< Gist:
> Head Note:



! Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud
^ Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Revenue



? Cases Referred:
1
    (2008) 15 SCC 7 11
2
    2014(2) ALT 1
3
    2010(4) ALT 655
4
    1996 (4) ALD 572 (D.B)
5
 . 1997 (4) ALT 304
6
 . 2000 (3) ALT 774
7
 . 2001 (5) ALD 766
8
 . 2014(4) ALD 358 = 2014(3) ALT 473
9. W.P.No.12179 of 2008, dated 05.07.2011
                                                                      WP_22810_2013
                                   3                                          SN,J




       THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                      W.P. No. 22810 of 2013
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. The petitioner filed this writ petition impugning the

proceedings of respondent No.2 contained in No.

B1/1665/2008, dated 24.06.2008 as confirmed by respondent

No.1 in his proceedings No.L/2816/2008, dated 28.06.2013

as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural of

justice.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner

is the owner of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.39 Gts

in Survey No.321 of Malkapur Village, Karimnagar Mandal and

District and have been in continuous peaceful possession and

enjoyment since from the date of purchase i.e. in the year

1996. The said land was purchased by the petitioner from

Somi Reddy Laxma Reddy and others for a valuable

consideration and the said sale was regularized by the then

MRO and pursuant to which the petitioner's name was also WP_22810_2013 4 SN,J

recorded in ROR register while granting pattadar passbook

and title deed. The petitioner, subsequently, sold the said land

to one Smt Juvvadi Padma W/o Pruthvidar Rao, vide sale

deed dated 05.03.2001 bearing document No.1327/2001.

Originally the subject land was owned and possessed by one

Devunoori Narasaiah and his father Rajaiah even prior to

1955 onwards and the same is evident from the revenue

records and the said Devunoori Narasaiah sold the subject

land to Jakku Laxma Goud, S/o Naga Lingam vide sale deed

dated 26.11.1969 and that subsequently, one J.Rama Goud

and others, who are the successors of J.Laxma Goud sold the

said land to Somi Reddy Laxma Reddy and others in the year

1989, which was in turn they sold to the petitioner in the year

1996. Bet that as it may, the 2nd respondent issued a show

cause notice dated 24.06.2008 under the provisions of the

A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The

petitioner submitted explanation on 24.05.2008 contending

that the subject land is not a Government land and it is a

patta land of Devunoori Narasaiah right from the period prior

to 1957 i.e. much prior to the commencement of Act 9 of

1977. The 2nd respondent has issued the impugned WP_22810_2013 5 SN,J

proceedings without conducting proper enquiry and without

verifying the records. Aggrieved by the said order, the

petitioner filed appeal before the 1st respondent under Section

4(A) of Act 9 of 1977 and the same was dismissed on

28.06.2013 without considering the grounds raised in the

appeal and without assigning any reasons. The petitioner

relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of

Rajasthan v Rajendra Prasad Jain1 wherein it was held

that the reason is the heart beat of every conclusion and

without the same it becomes lifeless. Hence, the petitioner

filed the present writ petition seeking writ of certiorari calling

for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the

2nd respondent herein contained in No.B1/1665/2008, dated

24.06.2008 as confirmed by the 1st respondent in his

proceedings No.L/2816/2008, dated 28.06.2013 as illegal

arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India and consequently to quash the same.

4. The main contentions put-forth by learned counsel

for the petitioner are as follows:

(2008) 15 SCC 7 11 WP_22810_2013 6 SN,J

a) The provisions of Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Land

(Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act, 1977')

against the petitioner is totally unwarranted.

b) The explanation submitted by the petitioner to the

show cause notice dated 24.06.2008 of the 2nd respondent

which clearly explained how the provisions of the Act cannot

be invoked against the petitioner was not at all considered.

c) The subject land was not at all assigned land and it was

patta land of one Devunoori Narsaiah right from 1957 i.e

much prior to the commencement of Act 9 of 1977.

d) The 2nd respondent issued the proceedings on

24.06.2008 mechanically without conducting proper enquiry

and without assigning valid reasons and without explaining

how the grounds raised by the petitioner in his explanation

dated 24.06.2008 were unsustainable in particular, the

specific contention of the petitioner that the subject land is a

patta land and not assigned land.

e) The 2nd respondent totally relied on the report of the

Tahsildar, which was totally unilateral in clear violation of WP_22810_2013 7 SN,J

principles of natural justice without the petitioner being put on

notice.

f) The 2nd respondent's order, which is vitiated was

reiterated erroneously by the 1st respondent, who failed to

apply his thought independently, which was in total non-

application of mind by the 1st respondent.

g) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the

judgment of the erstwhile High Court in Sunkara Sujana v

District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others2 and

contended that the burden of proof lies on the revenue

authority to show that the subject land is government land

and that the patta issued in favour of the Devunoori Narsaiah.

The registered sale transaction in respect of the subject land

on different occasions of petitioner's predecessors in title

established that the subject land was treated as free hold

land. Therefore, the 1st respondent cannot contend that the

subject land is Government land at this length of time without

relevant material on record indicating the same or

establishing the same.

    2014(2) ALT 1
                                                            WP_22810_2013
                                8                                   SN,J

5. No counter affidavit has been filed by the Government.

Learned Government Pleader however, submits that there is

no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the 2nd and 1st

respondents herein and the same warrants no interference by

this Court since the conditions of assignment were violated,

orders have been passed for resumption of the subject land.

Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Perused the record.

7.(a) A bare perusal of the notice dated 24.06.2008

vide No.B1/1665/2008, of the 2nd respondent herein indicates

that vide notice dated 07.06.2008, the petitioner was called

upon to submit his explanation as to why the subject land is

kept fallow without cultivation as per condition in

G.O.Ms.No.1562, Revenue Department, dated 13.09.1963.

The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 24.06.2008

stating that the petitioner purchased the subject land from his

vendor. The 2nd respondent was required, as the primary

authority to have first dealt with, adjudicated and then

recorded a finding on the existence of the jurisdictional fact

(of the land in question being assigned land) such conclusion WP_22810_2013 9 SN,J

was required to be arrived yet by the 2nd respondent on the

basis of credible and preponderating oral and documentary

evidence. The 2nd respondent was required to first conclude

that the land was "assigned land" as defined in the 1977 Act

before proceeding to adjudicate whether there was a

transgression of the provisions of Section 3 of the 1977 Act.

(b) Section 4 of the 1977 Act empowers the District

Collector or any other Officer not below the rank of a Mandal

Revenue Officer, authorized by him in this behalf, if satisfied

that the provisions of Section 3(1) have been contravened in

respect of any assigned land, to take possession of the

assigned land after evicting the person in possession; and to

restore the assigned land to the original assignee or his legal

heir..." Section 4(3) enacts a presumption of a contravention

of the provisions of Section 3(1), when an assigned land is in

possession of person other than a original assignee. Section

4A(1) provides an appellate remedy to a person aggrieved by

an order passed under Section 4(1); and a further appellate

remedy to the District Collector [Section 4A(2)] and Section

4B provides a revisional remedy to the State government.

                                                                     WP_22810_2013
                                    10                                       SN,J

(c) The letter of the Tahsildar dated 24.06.2008 vide

No.B1/1665/2008 further in its conclusion reads as under:

"With reference to above subject, on spot inspection neither original beneficiary (assignee) nor his sons are not cultivating for so many years and on the spot it is known that he sold to others and they also sold to others and the family members of assignee not cultivating the said land though assigned for cultivation, contravened the conditions by selling to others." "Hence, it is clear that beneficiaries have violated Laoni conditions, as per G.O.Ms.No.1562, dated 13.04.1963 the Government land in Survey No.321 area 3.39 acres of Malkapur Village will be taken into Government custody and orders are issued and ordered Mandal Revenue Inspector-I to take the said land into Government custody after conducting Panchanama."

(d) The letter dated 24.06.2008 states that on spot

inspection neither original beneficiary (assignee) nor his sons

are cultivating the subject land since many years and on the

spot it is known that the subject land is sold to others and

further that family members of the assignee are not

cultivating the said land though assigned for cultivation and

contravened the conditions by selling to others.

(e) There is a fatal infirmity in the proceedings of the 2nd

respondent dated 24.06.2008.

i) The 2nd respondent all of a sudden records a conclusion

unilaterally that the subject land is assigned land and the WP_22810_2013 11 SN,J

assignee nor his sons are cultivating for many years and

further they sold the land to others and thereby contravened

the assignment conditions. This conclusion is a unilateral

conclusion based neither on evidence nor a logical co-relation

of facts on record.

ii) The 2nd respondent unilaterally orders the Mandal

Revenue Inspector-I to take the subject land into Government

custody after conducting panchanama.

iii) There is no basis for this conclusion arrived at, neither

in evidence nor in logic and reason. Section 3 of the 1977 Act

reads as under:

(1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed of transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred; and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. (2) No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise.

(3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be null and void.

(4) The provisions of this section shall apply to any transaction of the nature referred to in sub-section (2) in execution of a decree or WP_22810_2013 12 SN,J

order of a civil court or of any award or order of any other authority.

(5) Nothing in this section shall apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house- site on the date of such commencement.

iv) Now it therefore, requires to be considered what the

expression assigned land means. Section 2(1) of the 1977

Act defines "assigned land" to mean "lands assigned by the

government to the landless 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 the

landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time

being in force relating to land ceiling and the word 'assigned'

shall be construed accordingly.

v) In view of the definition of the expression "assigned

land" in Section 2(1) of the 1977 Act, lands assigned by the

Government to the landless poor person under any rules for

the time being in force, which are assigned subject to a

condition of non-alienation, are assigned lands. Thus, land

assigned would be 'assigned land' within the meaning of

expression under the 1977 Act, if and only if the land is WP_22810_2013 13 SN,J

assigned with a condition in the deed of assignment

prohibiting its alienation.

f) A bare perusal of the above provision clearly indicates

that the said land necessarily must be an assigned land in

favour of a person with a condition prohibiting alienation and

that there must be a transfer in violation of the said provision.

The order impugned, however, is silent with regard to the

date of assignment in favour of Devunoori Narsaiah nor the

date on which spot inspection was done nor the date of

cancellation of the assignment made against Devunoori

Narsaiah in Survey No.321 to an extent of Ac.3.39 gts

situated at Malkapur Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District,

when he sold the assigned land to others in clear violation of

the assignment conditions.

g) In Dasari Narayana Rao and another v Deputy

Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally.

Ranga Reddy District and others3 in a judgment reported

in 2010(4) ALT 655 in W.P.No.10933 and 10934 of 2006

decided on 23.11.2006, the erstwhile High Court, Hyderabad

2010(4) ALT 655 WP_22810_2013 14 SN,J

at paras 30 to 35 dealing with a similar situation as the

present case observed as under:

"30. In Nimmagadda Rama Devi v. District Collector, Machilipatnam and Anr. MANU/AP/0540/1996 : 1996 (4) ALT 325 (D.B) : 1996 (4) ALD 572 (D.B)4, a Division Bench of this Court held, on an analysis of the provisions of the 1977 Act, that only if there is a condition of non-alienation while assigning the lands or the land is assigned under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, it would be "assigned land" within the meaning of the 1977 Act; where the assignment is without any such condition as to non-alienation, it would not be "assigned land" under the 1977 Act and the said Act has no applicability. When such is the position, the authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to deal with the lands under the provisions of the 1977 Act, held the Division Bench.

31. In G.V.K. Rama Rao and Anr. v. Bakelite Hylam Employees Co-op. House Building Society, Hyderabad MANU/AP/0362/1997 : 1997 (4) ALT 304 : 1997 (4) ALD 2945, this Court was considering a fact situation where land was assigned on 4.1.1953 under the 1950 Rules. In 1953 there was no condition of non-alienability in the assignment. The condition of non-alienability was seen to have been incorporated in the 1950 Rules by the revised assignment policy issued in G.O. Ms. No. 1406 Revenue, dated 25.7.1958. Under this G.O. the provisions relating to assignment of Government land in Andhra and Telengana regions of the State were integrated. On this analysis and conclusion as to the position of the 1950 Rules, the learned single Judge of this Court held that since there was no prohibition of alienation in the assignment in 1953 the land would not constitute "assigned land" within the meaning of the expression under the 1977 Act and therefore sale of such land is not hit by the provisions of the 1977

1996 (4) ALD 572 (D.B)

1997 (4) ALT 304 WP_22810_2013 15 SN,J

Act. 32. In Rambagh Satyanarayana and Ors. v. Joint Collector, R.R. District, Hyderabad and Ors. MANU/AP/0202/2000 : 2000 (3) ALT 774 : 2000 (2) ALD 4336, this Court reiterated that the prohibition Under Section 3 of the 1977 Act comes into operation only in case where the land is assigned subject to the condition of non-alienation.

33. Again in Shyam Sunder v. Government of A.P and Ors. MANU/AP/0630/2001 : 2002 (5) ALT 454 : 2001 (5) ALD 7667 this Court recorded that in the Laoni Rules 1357 Fasli as well as the subsequent Rules (the 1950 Rules) there was no condition of nonalienability, till G.O. Ms. No. 1406 dated 25.7.1958 was issued. This Court clearly held that in considering whether a transfer is hit by the provisions of the 1977 Act, the relevant fact is whether the transfer is of a land which has been assigned by the Government with a condition of non-alienability incorporated in the deed of assignment. On an analysis of the evolution of the Rules with regard to alienation this Court observed that neither under the 1357-F Rules nor the 1950 Rules was there a condition of non- alienability. Having identified this lacuna, the Government issued comprehensive rules in 195 in G.O. Ms. No. 1406 in supersession of the earlier Rules relating to assignment. It is only thereafter that the Rules enjoined that assigned lands are heritable but not transferable. This Court in Shyam Sunder (supra) held that the condition of non-alienability was incorporated in assignments made subsequent to 25.7.1958 and that no such condition may be presumed to have been attached to assignments made prior to 25.7.1958.

34. In the light of the above precedents, the authorities implementing the provisions of the 1977 Act must record a finding that there was an assignment by the Government to a landless poor person under the Rules for the time being in force with a condition prohibiting alienation; and that such "assigned land" was

2000 (3) ALT 774

2001 (5) ALD 766 WP_22810_2013 16 SN,J

alienated by such assignee, in contravention of Section 3 of the 1977 Act.

35. The proceedings under the 1977 Act are in the nature of civil proceedings. The conclusion that the land in question is assigned land may also be arrived at by a compelling inference preponderating from the circumstantial evidence on record. If the assignment in question is under certain Rules for the time being in force (within the meaning of this clause as employed in Section 2(1) of the 1977 Act); if such Rules (under which the assignment is made) enjoin a prohibition on alienation; and such statutory prohibition was in operation on the actual date of assignment, it might perhaps be an indicator justifying an inference that the land in question is an "assigned land". For such a presumption to be legitimately drawn, the respondents must establish the date of assignment and the contemporaneous state of the Rules under which assignment was made, to legitimize the conclusion that the Rules did prohibit alienation as on the date of assignment. All these are essentially questions of facts and must first be put to the person aggrieved so as to afford him a reasonable opportunity to explain or defend his possession and ownership of the land in question, a valuable property right. A reasonable opportunity is that which informs a respondent to a show cause notice of the facts that are asserted against him or his interest."

h) The erstwhile High Court of A.P. in G.Satyanarayana v

Government of A.P.8 held as follows:

The ratio that could be culled out from the slew of authorities of this Court is that assignments made prior to issue of G.O.Ms. No. 1142, dt. 18-6-1954 in Andhra Area and that were made prior to issue of G.O.Ms. No. 1406, dt. 25-7-1958 in Telangana Area, did not contain prohibition on alienation that the

2014(4) ALD 358 = 2014(3) ALT 473 WP_22810_2013 17 SN,J

assignees are entitled to exercise all the rights including transfer of lands; that the initial burden lies on the Government and its functionaries to show that the assignments contain a condition against alienation of the land and that unless the revenue functionaries are first satisfied that the land is an assigned land within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of Act 9 of 1977, no proceeding for cancellation of assignment can be initiated.

i) While dealing with a case filed against an order

resuming the land under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned

Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the erstwhile High

Court of A.P. in Akkem Anjaiah v Deputy Collector and

Tahsilder, Saroornagar Mandal (in W.P.No.12179 of 2008,

dated 05.07.20119, held in para 9 as under:

"In the instant case, respondent No.1 has not given any finding that he has perused the patta granted in favour of Maqdoom Shareef under the Laoni Rules, 1950. Curiously, he placed the burden on the petitioners to show that the patta does not contain any condition against alienation. Indeed, it is for respondent No.1 to be first satisfied that the land, which was alienated is "assigned land" within the meaning of Section 2 (1) of Act 9 of 1977, which defined "assigned land" as the lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor persons under the Rules for the time being in force subject to the condition of non-alienation. In my opinion, the jurisdiction of respondent No.1/competent authority, under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977, for cancellation of the assignment and resumption of the land, can be exercised only on the prima facie satisfaction that

W.P.No.12179 of 2008, dated 05.07.2011 WP_22810_2013 18 SN,J

the said land is an assigned land, which necessarily means that the assignment made in respect thereof contains a condition against alienation. Respondent No.1 was, therefore, not expected to issue the show cause notice without looking into the patta granted under the Laoni Rules. He has completely misdirected himself in throwing the burden on the petitioners to show that the Laoni patta does not contain the condition against the alienation. On the contrary, the initial burden is on him to show that the said patta contained such a condition. In the light of the admitted fact that the patta granted in favour of Maqdoom Shareef, who is the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, was much prior to the commencement of the revised policy vide G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25-07-1958, and in the absence of any finding that the said patta contained the condition against alienation, the very invocation of the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 by respondent No.1 is wholly without jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. As a consequence thereof, Proceedings No.A/1448/07, dated 24-05-2008, issued by respondent No.1, is quashed."

j) A bare perusal of the order dated 24.06.2008 reveals

that no specific reference is made to the relevant rules of the

assignment to legitimise the conclusion arrived at in the

impugned letter dated 24.06.2008 that the rules prohibit

alienation as on the date of assignment.

k) The impugned order of the 2nd respondent is illegal, the

2nd respondent having come to an erroneous conclusion that

the subject land is assigned land without bringing on record, WP_22810_2013 19 SN,J

considering or analysing the relevant facts, as to the date of

assignment and whether the deed of assignment (in favour of

the original assignee) contained a prohibition against

alienation. There is no rational and legitimate finding of

conclusion recorded that the land in the possession of the

petitioner is an 'assigned land'.

l) The 1st respondent in his proceedings No.L/2816/2008,

dated 28.06.2013 merely reiterated the erroneous and

speculative conclusion of the 2nd respondent.

m) A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings of the 1st

respondent dated 28.06.2013 vide No.L/2816/2008, clearly

indicate non application of mind, and total reliance on the

report of the 2nd respondent, the report which neither referred

to the date of assignment in favour of the original assignee or

his legal heirs to claim the subject land as Government land

nor refers to the date of cancellation of the assignment made

in favour of original assignee or his legal heirs on violation of

terms of assignment.

n) The 1st respondent in letter dated 28.08.2013 though

admitted the possession of the petitioner since 1996 however, WP_22810_2013 20 SN,J

curiously observed that it will not create any right or title over

the said assigned land.

o) In view of the fact that the impugned order of the 2nd

respondent dated 24.06.2008 is a leap to an erroneous

conclusion that the possession of the petitioner (of the land in

question) is in transgression of the prohibitions contained in

the 1977 Act, the unilateral conclusion having arrived at by

the 2nd respondent, which is based on no evidence

whatsoever and no deed of assignment having been examined

by the 2nd respondent prior to arriving at the said conclusion

and admittedly as borne on record there is no rational and

legitimate finding or conclusion recorded that the land in the

possession of the petitioner is an 'assigned land' as the

expression is defined in Section 2(1) of the 1977 Act, this

Court opines that the impugned order of the 2nd respondent

dated 24.06.2008 in proceedings No.B1/1665/2008 declaring

that the beneficiaries have violated the laoni conditions and

further ordering the Mandal Revenue Inspector-I to take the

subject land into Government custody after conducting

panchanama declaring the possession of the petitioner of the WP_22810_2013 21 SN,J

land in question as in violation of the provisions of Section 3

of the 1977 Act, is therefore, invalid and inoperative.

p) Since the primary order of the 2nd respondent dated

24.06.2008 is invalid, it must logically follow that the

impugned order of the 1st respondent vide proceedings

No.L/2816/2008, dated 28.06.2013 must also perish since the

same is mere reiteration of the primary order and suffers the

same incurable defect.

q) As the consequence of the aforementioned conclusion

the resumption of the subject land in favour of the State by

the order of the 2nd respondent dated 24.06.2008 as

confirmed by the order of the 1st respondent dated 28.6.2013

must normally be restored and the petitioner put in the same

position as he was prior to the impugned order dated

24.06.2008.

8. Taking into consideration the law laid down in the

judgments relied upon by the petitioner referred to above and

also the view taken by the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad

in all other judgments referred to and discussed above and

also the interim orders of this Court dated 01.08.2013 passed WP_22810_2013 22 SN,J

in WPMP No.27982 of 2013 in present W.P.No.22810 of 2013,

the writ petition is allowed as prayed for and the impugned

proceedings No. B1/1665/2008, dated 24.06.2008 of the 2nd

respondent as confirmed by respondent No.1 in his

proceedings No.L/2816/2008, dated 28.06.2013 are hereby

quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 28.07.2022 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked b/o kvrm