The Government Of Telangana vs Amzad
2022 Latest Caselaw 3117 Tel

    THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                                AND

   THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                  WRIT APPEAL No.405 of 2022


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

      Heard learned Government Pleader for Assignment for the

appellants and Mr. B.Siva Rama Sarma, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of Mr. K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned

counsel for the sole respondent.

2. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the

State and its officials assailing the legality and validity of the

order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.32356 of 2014 filed by the respondent as the writ

petitioner.

3. The writ petition was filed assailing the order dated

05.10.2007 of respondent No.3 (appellant No.3 herein) for

resumption of the subject land on the ground that the land was

not cultivated within three years of assignment. Though the

writ petition was filed in the year 2014 and was adjourned from

time to time, no counter affidavit was filed by the respondents 2 HCJ & SNJ W.A.No.405 of 2022

State (appellants herein). Ultimately the writ petition was heard

on 23.07.2021. Learned Single Judge took the view that since

no counter affidavit was filed, the averments made in the writ

affidavit remained uncontroverted and therefore those were

treated to be correct. Learned Single Judge further noted that

the subject land was assigned way back in the year 1966 but

resumption order was made only in the year 2007 on the

ground that the land was not cultivated within three years of

allotment.

4. If the land was not cultivated within three years of

allotment, then the resumption should have been carried out

forthwith, at least immediately on completion of the three year

period. But for 37 years, no decision was taken. In such

circumstances, learned Single Judge took the view that such

resumption of land was absurd. That apart the resumption

was without notice and hearing to the respondent.

5. Relevant portion of the order dated 23.07.2021

reads as under:

                              3                        HCJ & SNJ
                                              W.A.No.405 of 2022

"In the absence of any affidavit from the respondents contradicting the assertions made in the writ affidavit, the averments made in the writ affidavit have to be taken as true. Even otherwise, the assignment of subject land was made in the year 1966 and the resumption of the said land was made in the year 2007 stating that the land is not cultivated within three years of its allotment which is absurd. It is also stated that the impugned order is without notice and the Tahasildar, Gadwal also addressed a letter dated 08.10.2013 stating that the Pahanies for the years from 1966-67 to 2005-06 revealed that the subject land was cultivated within the three years of its allotment and also thereafter.

The reason for resumption of subject land is for construction of two bed room flats for weaker sections.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that still, the subject land is vacant and no constructions have come up. He also states that notice has been issued to the petitioner.

Even if that is taken into account, it is proved that the assignee brought the subject land under cultivation within three years of its assignment and also thereafter. When the assignment is made in the year 1966, the resumption order cannot be issued in the year 2007 stating that the subject land was not cultivated within three years of its allotment.

                                    4                         HCJ & SNJ
                                                     W.A.No.405 of 2022

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned resumption order is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings No.B/7577/2007 issued by the 3rd respondent on 05.10.2007. No order as to costs."

6. On due consideration, we do not find any error or

infirmity to interfere with the decision of the learned Single

Judge. That being the position, we are not inclined to entertain

the appeal.

7. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However,

there shall be no order as to costs.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_________________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 28.06.2022 KL