Telangana High Court
The District Collector vs P.Venkat Rao on 22 March, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.388 and 392 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy
involved in the present cases, the writ appeals were
analogously heard and by a common judgment, they are
being disposed of by this Court.
The facts in W.A.No.388 of 2018 are reproduced as
under:-
The present writ appeal is arising out of an order
dated 19.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.12155 of 2008.
The facts of the case reveal that a writ petition was
preferred by the sole respondent herein, who is an ex-
serviceman and who retired from the Indian Air Force,
being aggrieved by an order dated 07.05.2008 passed by
the Tahsildar, Mahaboobnagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar
District, cancelling the assignment of land which was done
in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner on 13.09.1993.
The land was allotted to the respondent/writ petitioner
invoking G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 26.07.1958. The terms of
assignment stated that the land would be heritable, but
not alienable. At the time when the land was allotted it
was just a hillock as reflected from the record and with
great difficulty, the respondent/writ petitioner made it fit
for cultivation. An order was passed on 05.06.2003 by the
Tahsildar cancelling the assignment on the ground that the
respondent/writ petitioner is not cultivating the land and
he has violated the terms and conditions of the allotment.
The aforesaid order, as reflected from the record, was not
communicated to the respondent/writ petitioner and
therefore, a writ petition was preferred i.e., W.P.No.5993 of
2007, by the respondent/writ petitioner. This Court has
allowed the said writ petition vide order dated 02.04.2007
on the ground that the order of cancellation was not served
on the assignee and the assignee was also not informed
regarding the violation of the terms and conditions of the
assignment deed. The State Government thereafter issued
a fresh show cause notice on 04.02.2008 directing the
respondent/writ petitioner to show cause as to why the
land assigned to him should not be resumed on the ground
that he had violated the terms of assignment by not
bringing it under cultivation. The respondent/writ
petitioner had submitted a reply on 26.02.2008 denying
the allegations and has stated categorically that there is a
bore well in existence, crops are in existence and therefore,
no cancellation of assignment can be done. It is pertinent
to note that the Assistant Director, Survey and Land
Records, also inspected the land and noticed the existence
of castor crop. A pattadar pass book was also issued in
favour of the respondent/writ petitioner and the
documents filed by him, including the pahani for the year
2004-05, reflected that he has raised castor crop. In spite
of the fact that the respondent/writ petitioner was
cultivating the land, his assignment was cancelled by an
order dated 07.05.2008 and in those circumstances, the
writ petition was preferred. The learned Single Judge has
allowed the writ petition by holding that the ex-serviceman
was cultivating the land and the State Government, on
frivolous grounds, could not have cancelled the assignment
as in the manner and method it has been done.
This Court has carefully gone through the entire
record and the documents filed before this Court reveal
that the pattadar pass book and title deeds were issued in
favour of the respondent/writ petitioner, pahani for the
year 2004-05 was also issued in which it was categorically
mentioned that the respondent/writ petitioner was
cultivating the castor crop, and as the order dated
07.05.2008 was contrary to the revenue records, the same
has been set aside by the learned Single Judge.
The State Government, by merely mentioning that
agriculture is not taking place over the land in question,
has cancelled the assignment. This Court is of the
considered opinion that the State Government has erred in
law and facts in cancelling the assignment to an ex-
serviceman keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
the case.
It is also pertinent to note that the ex-servicemen, as
they dedicate their entire life to serve the country, are given
certain incentives by various Governments as well as
Union of India and this is one such step for assignment of
land to the ex-serviceman. The respondent/writ petitioner
is an ex-serviceman and he was serving the Indian Air
Force. The assignment of land in his favour could not have
been cancelled in the manner and method it has been done
by the State Government. The learned Single Judge was
justified in allowing the writ petition. This Court does not
find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
22.03.2022
vs
