The District Collector And 2 ... vs M G V Rama Rao And 11 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2389 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

          WRIT APPEAL Nos.128, 284 and 330 of 2022

COMMON JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     Regard being had to the controversy involved in the

aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being

decided by a common judgment.

     The facts of W.A.No.128 of 2022 are reproduced as

under:

     The present writ appeal is arising out of a common

order dated 07.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.30687 of 2010 and

other connected matters.

     The facts of the case reveal that the respondent No.1

before this Court in the writ appeal came up with a case

stating that he has purchased a land i.e., Plot No.95 in

Survey    No.44/1    situated          at       Munuganoor               Village,

Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on 20.12.1984

and the respondents in the writ petition were interfering with

his peaceful possession. A specific prayer was made to direct

the respondents in the writ petition i.e., Government of

Andhra Pradesh, District Collector, Ranga Reddy District,
                                    2




Tahsildar,     Hayathnagar         Mandal,        Sarpanch,        Gram

Panchayat, Munaganoor Mandal and the Andhra Pradesh

Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited to pay compensation as

per the market price or to restore the land owned by him.

      Other connected writ petitions were also filed stating

that the writ petitioners therein have purchased the land

through registered sale deeds and the official respondents

are threatening them to dispossess from the plots purchased

by them.     The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ

petitions.

      Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the common order passed by

the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24799 of 2007 and

batch, dated 07.09.2021, read as under:-

      "19.   In the result, writ petition nos.24799 & 26497 of
      2007 and 24384 of 2008 are allowed directing the
      respondents not to interfere with their peaceful possession
      of their respective plots/houses.

      20.    WP No.30687 of 2010 filed by the petitioner-party-in-
      person is also allowed directing restoration of the subject
      plot No.95 and in case the respondents are unable to
      identify the said plot, it is ordered that the 2nd respondent
      to allot the petitioner a plot of the same extent if vacant
      land is available in Sy.No.44/1 or alternatively for allotment
      of a plot of the same extent elsewhere in a suitable location
      or pay him compensation for the extent of plot i.e. 208 sq.
                                    3




     yards in Sy.No.44/1 by applying the parameters as laid
     down in Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
     Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
     2013. The above direction be given effect to within a period
     of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
     order. The petitioner (party-in-person) WP No.30687 of
     2010 was made to fight out litigations for the last more
     than a decade before various forums including Hon'ble
     Supreme Court, which caused him financial loss besides
     mental agony, therefore the petitioner (party-in-person) is
     awarded costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac). The
     2nd respondent-District Collector, Ranga Reddy District is
     directed to pay the same to the petitioner-party-in-person
     in WP No.30687 of 2010 within two months from the date
     of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions, if
     any, pending in these matters are also stand disposed of.
     There shall no order as to costs in other writ petitions."



     The facts as revealed from the record make it very clear

that the lands in question were assigned lands and the

persons to whom the lands were assigned sold the same by

dividing them into smaller plots. One such plot was sold to

the respondent No.1 in the present writ appeal. The State

Government, in exercise of powers conferred under the

Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers)

Act, 1977, initiated proceedings and with due notice to the

land owners, passed resumption order on 29.01.2007.
                                        4




     The resumption order dated 29.01.2007, which is part

of the paper book of W.A.No.330 of 2022 is reproduced as

under:-

           "PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND MANDAL
          REVENUE OFFICER, HAYATHNAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

                          Present:T.K.Rama Mani

     Progs.No.C/447/2002                             Dated:29.01.2007

             Sub:   GOVT.LANDS - Hayathnagar Mandal -
                    Munuganoor Village - Sy.No.441 extent Ac.
                    4-19 gts assigned for agriculture purpose -
                    Violation    of   assignment     conditions -
                    Assignment cancelled - Resumption of land
                    under the provisions of A.P.Assigned lands
                    (P.O.T) Act 9 of 1977 orders issued.


             Ref:   1.     Report    of       the    M.R.I.Hayathnagar
                           dated: - Nil -
                    2.     Form - I notice issued dated 30.9.2003.
                                      ****

     ORDER:

In the reference 1st cited, the Mandal Revenue Inspector of this office has reported that Sri Kundeti Laxmaiah, S/o.Mallaiah was assigned Government land in Sy.no.44/1 to an extent of 4-19 gts at Munuganoor Village for agricultural purpose. It is also reported that Sri Kundeti Laxmaiah, S/o.Mallaiah the assignee of the Government has changed the land into Non agriculture and commercially converted into plots and sold away to others. Thus, it is construed that the assignee has violated the conditions stipulated under assignment rules and it is held that the assignee has contravened the provisions of Sub-

Section (2) of Section 3 of A.P.Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 and also conditions (1) and (2) of assignment.

Consequently, through the reference 2nd cited Form-I Notice of Act 9/77 was issued to the assignees/legal heirs and copy of the same was affixed on the notice board of Gram Panchayat, Munuganoor for publicity. Subsequently, in response to the above notice the assignees/possessors agitating on the above notice have filed representations in person and through their counsels. Initially the matter was taken up for hearing giving the assignees/possessors an opportunity to defend themselves. The said representations filed thereof were examined w.r.t.material on record and the guidelines issued by the Government under A.P.Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977, and found that there are registered transaction of commercial plots clearly showing the violation of section (3) of POT & (1)(2) of assignment lands.

In view of the above narrated facts and circumstances it is ordered that the assignment patta granted in favour of Sri Kunde Laxmaiah, S/o.Mallaiah in Sy.No.44/1 admeasuring 4-19 gts of Munuganoor Village is hereby cancelled and the scheduled land is resumed into Government custody in light of the provisions under Act 9/77 immediately.

The Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor, Hayathnagar are jointly directed take over the possession of the said Government land under cover of Panchanama and sketch and report compliance. In turn the possession of the resume land shall be handed over to the Panchayat Secretary concerned for necessary protection in the capacity of custodian of Government lands.

Appeal on this order lies with the Revenue Divisional Officer, under Section 4(a) of the said Act within sixty days from the date of receipt of this order.

Sd/-

Deputy Collector & Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal"

It is an undisputed fact that the assignees preferred

writ petitions before this Court i.e., W.P.No.25186 of 2007,

W.P.No.1511 of 2008 and W.P.No.575 of 2008 and the

learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions with a

liberty to approach the appellate authority. One such order

passed in W.P.No.25186 of 2007, dated 27.11.2007, is

reproduced as under:-

"The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to declare the impugned order vide proceedings N.C.447/2002, dated 29.01.2007 of the 2nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently restore the land assigned to late Paranda Achaiah (now sub-divided as Sy.No.44/2 & 44/4) admeasuring Ac.4.25 guntas and Ac.7.16 guntas respectively situated at Munuganoor village, Hayathnagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the petitioners being the legal heirs of the original assignee.

It is the case of the petitioners that they are the sons of late Paranda Achaiah and the said late Achaiah was assigned with land of an extent of Ac.12.00 guntas in Sy.No.44 of Munuganoor village, Hayathnagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District under Laoni patta. It is

stated that one Laxmaiah was also assigned with Ac.10.00 guntas of land in the said Sy.No.44 and the said survey number was later sub-divided into 44/1, 44/2, 44/3, and 44/4 and the original assignees did not alienate the said lands. However, their uncle who obtained their signatures appears to have been misused the same and in the meanwhile the second respondent/Tahsildar after issuing notice, resumed the said lands by proceedings N.C./447/2002, dated 29.01.2007 on the ground that land an extent of Ac.5.20 guntas in Sy.No.44/1 situated at Munuganoor village was assigned in favour of Achaiah, the father of the petitioners for agricultural purpose, but the said Achaiah changed the said land into non-agricultural purpose and converted into plots and sold away in favour of some others violating the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act (for short 'the Act').

Admittedly, an appeal lies against the impugned order under Section 4A(1) of the Act. Therefore, I am not inclined to admit the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate authority. There shall be no order as to costs."

The assignee thereafter preferred an appeal in the

matter and the same was dismissed by an order dated

10.03.2008. In all the cases the appeals were preferred and

the same were dismissed by the competent authority.

It is certainly not in dispute that the order resuming

the land and the appellate order were not challenged by any

person before this Court, including the present writ

petitioner. The order of resumption was certainly brought to

the notice of the writ petitioner in the counter affidavit filed

by the State Government in the month of June, 2011, in the

present proceedings.

In all the matters, the writ petitioners did not amend

their writ petitions and they have not done so till date.

Meaning thereby, the order of resumption has attained

finality.

In the considered opinion of this Court, once the order

of resumption is in existence, it has not been challenged and

it has not been set aside, the question of placing the writ

petitioner in possession does not arise.

The sale deed was executed in favour of the writ

petitioner in the present writ appeal in the year 1984 and the

sale deed is also on record. Clause 3 of the sale deed reads

as, "That the vendor shall indemnify the vendee against all

losses or expenses that the vendee may sustain or incur by

reason of any defect of any kind whatsoever in the vendor's

title thereof".

Therefore, there was a remedy available to the writ

petitioner to file a civil suit where all the disputed questions

of fact could have been looked into.

In the considered opinion of this Court, in the light of

the resumption order, which has not been challenged, the

question of granting relief to the writ petitioners does not

arise.

As a result, the writ appeals filed by the State are

allowed. The writ petitioners shall certainly be at liberty to

file civil suit claiming compensation or for any other relief in

accordance with law.

The miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_________________________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 07.06.2022 vs