Telangana High Court
Smt.Sumitra vs The Collector, on 12 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.20567 of 2008 AND 2238 of 2012
COMMON ORDER:
1. The petitioners in W.P.No.20567 of 2008 have filed the writ
petition questioning the order vide Proc.No.C1/1544/08 dated
17.04.2008 passed by the respondent No.2/Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sanga Reddy, granting permission in favour of respondent No.4/Abdul
Rasheed, for establishment of poultry and dairy farm in Sy.No.275/20
and 270/21 situated at Zaheerabad Village and Mandal, on the ground
that they are the assignees, respondent No.3/Tahsildar had granted
house site pattas Ac.0.05 cents each to them and others total extent
comes to Ac.2.31 gts in Sy.No.275 P.P. under the guise of the said
permission, he is trying to interfering with their property and
respondent No.2 is not having jurisdiction to grant such permission.
2. Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.20567 of 2008 had filed another Writ
Petition.No.2238 of 2012 questioning the order passed by respondent
No.1/District Collector, Medak at Sanga Reddy, vide
Proc.No.A9/7328/79 dated 21.01.2012 cancelling the assignment patta
in respect of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts. in
Sy.No.275/20 and 275/21 at the instance of petitioner No.1 in
W.P.No.20567 of 2008.
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.20567 of 2008 & 2238 of 2012
3. In view of the same, both the writ petitions were clubbed together
and disposed of by way of a common order.
4. Heard Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri
T.Laxmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.20567
of 2008 and respondent No.3 in W.P.No.2238 of 2012, and Sri Vivek
Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.2238 of 2012 and
respondent No.4 in W.P.No.20567 of 2008, and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) for official respondent
Nos.1 to 3 in W.P.No.20567 of 2008 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in
W.P.No.2238 of 2012.
5. Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel, submits that the
Tahsildar had granted house site pattas to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents to
each petitioner in W.P.No.20567 of 2008 and others (total 56 persons),
total extent comes to Ac.2.31 gts in Sy.No.275 of Zaheerabad Village and
Mandal in the year 1987 and handed over the possession to them on
23.06.1987. When the petitioners are making construction of houses in
their respective property, District Collector, Sangareddy had issued
letter dt: 05.04.1988 directing the Tahsildar, Zaheerabad, to stop the
construction works as they want to conduct enquiry upon the subject
land. Questioning the same, petitioners have filed W.P.Nos.7509 of
1988 & W.P.No. 5292 of 1988 and the said cases were disposed on
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.20567 of 2008 & 2238 of 2012
11.09.1996 directing the respondents to conduct enquiry after issuing
proper notices to the petitioners.
5.1 He further submits that the Tahsildar, Zaheerabad, had issued
initiated Proceedings vide.No.B/2066/85 dated 22.02.2003 invoking the
provision of Section 145 Cr.P.C, at the instance of third parties.
Questioning the same, petitioners have filed Crl.P.No.2485 of 2007
before this Court and the same was allowed on 13.04.2007. He also
submits that Abdul Rasheed filed a suit in O.S.No.29 of 2004 on the file
of the Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, against Prabhakar Goud, Mohd.
Haneef and M.Shankar for seeking Perpetual Injunction. Along with the
said suit he also filed application I.A.No.39 of 2004 for grant of
temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants therein
from interfering with the suit schedule property i.e., an extent of Ac.5.00
gts. covered by Sy.No.275/7 and the said application was dismissed on
21.02.2005. Aggrieved by the same, Abdul Rasheed filed C.M.A.No.18 of
2006 on the file of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at
Sanga Reddy and the same was also dismissed on 02.11.2006.
5.2 He further submits that, Abdul Rasheed made an application on
19.03.2008 before Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy seeking
permission for establishment of poultry and dairy farm in Sy.No.275/20
and 275/21. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy, without any
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.20567 of 2008 & 2238 of 2012
giving notice opportunity to the petitioners and without conducting any
enquiry, passed the impugned order on 17.04.2008 granting permission
as sought by Abdul Rasheed. Admittedly, the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Sanga Reddy, is not having any authority or jurisdiction to grant
such permission to construct poultry and dairy farm in the subject land,
especially Abdul Rasheed is claiming rights over the property basing
upon the alleged assignment patta granted by the Tahasildar,
Zaheerabad Mandal and it is meant for agricultural purpose only and
under the guise of the above said order Abdul Rasheed is making
attempts to grab the petitioners land to an extent of Ac.2-31 gts in
Sy.No.275PP and Abdul Rasheed land Ac.5-00 gts is Sy.No.275/20 and
21 do not form part of petitioners land Ac.2-31 gts. Hence, the
impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy,
is without jurisdiction.
5.3 He also contended that Abdul Rasheed is 12 years old minor boy
at the time of grant of assignment patta and he is not eligible for the
same. Moreover, on the very same day, the Tahasildar, Zaheerabad
Mandal, granted assignment patta an extent of Ac.5.00 in favour of
Abdul Khader, who is none-other than the father of Abdul Rasheed, in
the very same survey number and as per the provisions of Board
Standing Orders, A.P. (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli or under the
A.P. (T.S) Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 Abdul
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.20567 of 2008 & 2238 of 2012
Rasheed is not eligible or entitled for grant of assignment patta. The
District Collector, Medak at Sanga Reddy, after following due procedure
as contemplated under law rightly passed the impugned order dated
21.01.2012 in W.P.No.2238/2012, cancelling the assignment patta
granted in his favour.
5.4 He vehemently contended that District Collector had rightly
initiated the proceedings for cancellation of assignment patta, as per the
provisions of Board Standing Orders BSO - 15 (18), on the ground that
Abdul Rasheed had obtained the assignment patta by misrepresenting
the facts. He further contended that Abdul Rasheed filed the election
identity card as well as date of birth certificate issued by the Zaheerabad
Municipality, dated 16.03.2012, for the first time before this Court and
the said documents were not produced before the District Collector.
Therefore, the said documents cannot be taken into consideration.
Hence, the impugned order dated 21.01.2012 passed by the District
Collector, Medak at Sanga Reddy in W.P.No.2238 of 2012 is in
accordance with law and he is not entitled any relief, much less the
relief sought in the above said writ petition.
5.5 In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgments.
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.20567 of 2008 & 2238 of 2012
1. K.Narayanaswami Naidu and another v. State of A.P.
rep. by the District Collector, Chittoor and others 1 .
2. Patakamuru Damodar Prasad and another v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 2
6. Per contra, Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.3 in W.P.No.20567 of 2008 and the petitioner in
W.P.No.2238 of 2012 submits that Abdul Rasheed is a landless poor
person and the respondent authorities after following the due procedure
as contemplated under the Rules, the then Tahasildar has granted
assignment patta to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts of agricultural dry land
covered by Sy.No.275 on 15.04.1980 and since then he has been in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property with absolute
rights and doing agriculture, subsequently the above survey No.275 is
sub-divided into Sy.Nos.275/20 and 275/21.
6.1 He further submits that when the assignment patta granted in
favour of Abdul Rasheed is subsisting, the respondent authorities are
not having any authority or jurisdiction to grant assignment of house
site pattas in favour of the petitioners in W.P.No.20567 of 2008 in the
year 1987 especially assignee i.e. Abdul Rasheed has not violated
conditions of the assignment patta and he had not played fraud while
obtaining the assignment patta in the year 1980. He further submits
1997 (5) ALT 276 (D.B.)
2002 (6) ALD 67
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.20567 of 2008 & 2238 of 2012
that the District Collector had initiated the proceedings on the
complaint submitted by petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.20567 of 2003 on
21.03.2009 and she is not having any right over the subject property.
6.2 He also contended that the District Collector simply relied upon
the bonafide school certificate produced by respondent No.3 passed the
impugned order dated 21.01.2012 without giving reasonable
opportunity to the Abdul Rasheed and without conducitng enquiry and
also without verifying the records, holding that he is a minor, though as
on the date of granting assignment patta Abdul Rasheed is a major and
he is living separately and as per the assignment rules, he is eligible for
grant of assignment patta to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts. agricultural dry
land. He further contended that Abdul Rasheed is doing agriculture in
the major portion of the land and he made an application to the
Revenue Divisional Officer for establishment of dairy & poultry form in
small extent of land and after due verification and also after conducting
enquiry he granted permission, vide Proceedings dated 17.04.2008. The
defendants in O.S.No.29 of 2003 have admitted the possession of Abdul
Rasheed and in those circumstances, Abdul Rasheed has withdrawn the
suit in O.S.No.29 of 2003 filed by him and the said suit is nothing to do
with the subject matter of writ petitions.
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.20567 of 2008 & 2238 of 2012
6.3 He further contended that the District Collector, Medak at Sanga
Reddy passed the impugned order dated 21.01.2012 cancelling the
assignment patta granted in favour of Abdul Rasheed after lapse of more
than 32 years, without giving reasonable opportunity to him including
personal hearing, and the same is clear violation of principles of natural
justice and contrary to law.
6.4 In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and
another vs. D.Narsinga Rao 3.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the District
Collector, Medak at Sanga Reddy, after following the due procedure as
contemplated under law, passed the impugned order dated 21.01.2012
cancelling the assignment patta granted in favour of Abdul Rasheed and
there is no illegality or irregularity in the said order.
8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it clearly
reveals that Abdul Rasheed is claiming the rights over the property to an
extent of Ac.5.00 gts of dry land covered in Sy.No.275/20 and 275/21
(old Sy.No.275) basing on the assignment patta vide
Proc.No.A9/7328/79 dated 15.04.1980 issued by the then Tahasildar,
2015 (3) SCC 697
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.20567 of 2008 & 2238 of 2012
Zaheerabad. Whereas, the petitioners in W.P.No.20567 of 2008 are
claiming rights over the property covered by Sy.No.275PP basing on the
house site pattas granted by the then Tahasildar, Zaheerabad to an
extent of Ac.0.05 cents each to them along with others (total 56 persons,
total extent is Ac.2-31 gts) in the year 1987. It appears from the record
that then District Collector, Medak, Sangareddy issued letter
No.B6/9787/1987, dated 05.04.1988 to the then Mandal Revenue
Officer, Zaheerabad, directing him to stop the construction works
commenced by the petitioners & others in W.P.No.20567/08 in
Sy.No.275 on the ground that he intends to conduct an enquiry.
Questioning the same, petitioners in W.P.No.20567/08 & others (total
56 persons) have filed W.P.No.7509 of 1988 before this Court and the
same was to disposed of on 11-09-1996, with following order:
"The apprehension of the petitioners is that the
Collector may setaside the pattas without notice to
them and without holding enquiry. In the counter
affidavit it is clarified that the enquiry would be
conducted and property notices would be issued to
the petitioners. Having regard to this statement, I am
of the view that no relief can be granted to the
petitioners at this stage. However, status quo as to
possession as on today shall be maintained till the
contemplated enquiry by the Collector is completed."
9. It further reveals from the records that the then Mandal Revenue
Officer and Executive Magistrate, Zaheerabad initiated the proceedings
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.20567 of 2008 & 2238 of 2012
invoking the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 22.02.2003.
Questioning the same, petitioners in W.P.No.20567 of 2008 have filed
Crl.P.No.2485 of 2007 before this Court and the same was disposed on
13.04.2007. Similarly Abdul Rasheed (petitioner in W.P.No.2238 of
2012) has filed O.S.No.29 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,
Zaheerabad against Prabhakar Goud, Mohd. Haneef and M.Shankar for
seeking perpetual injunction and the said suit was dismissed as
withdrawn.
10. Petitioners in W.P.No.20567 of 2008 have questioned the
Proc.No.C1/1544/08 dated 17.04.2008 issued by the RDO, Sangareddy,
granting permission to Abdul Rasheed for establishment of poultry and
dairy farm in Sy.No.270/20 and 21 on the ground that under the guise
of the said permission he is trying to interfere with their lands and the
RDO/respondent No.2 is not having jurisdiction to grant such
permission. It appears from the records that this Court while admitting
the W.P.No.20567 of 2008 granted status quo until further orders in
W.P.M.P.No.26855 of 2008 and the same is continuing till date. It is
very much relevant to mention here that whether the land assigned in
favour of the petitioners in W.P.No.20567 of 2008 and the land assigned
infavour of Abdul Rasheed, is same or different, when the petitioners in
W.P.No.20567 of 2008 raised specific contention that under the guise of
impugned order dated 17.04.2008 Mohd Abudula Rasheed is trying to
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.20567 of 2008 & 2238 of 2012
interfere with their land and the same is disputed question of fact and
the same has to be adjudicated by the respondent authorities after
verifying the records and also conducting enquiry. When the above said
writ petition is pending before this Court, District Collector, Medak
District, Sangareddy, cancelled the assignment patta granted infavour of
the Abdul Rasheed vide Pro.C.No.E/18430/2008 dated 21-01-2012.
Questioning the same he filed the W.P.No.2238/2012.
11. It is relevant to mention here that the then Thasildar, Zaheerabad
granted assignment patta in favour of Abdul Rasheed on 15.04.1980.
Unless and until the assignment patta cancelled and resumed the land
from Abdul Rasheed, the respondent authorities are not entitled to grant
assignment patta to others.
12. It further reveals from the record that respondent No.1/District
Collector in W.P.No.2238 of 2012 initiated the proceedings against the
Abdul Rasheed/petitioner, basing upon the representation/complaint of
respondent No.3 dated 21.03.2009 and also as per the orders passed by
this Court in W.P.No.33708 of 2011 dated 24.01.2011 and cancelled the
assignment patta on the ground as on the date of grant of assignment
patta the petitioner is minor and he is not eligible for the same. The
specific ground of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 passed the
order simply relying upon the Bonafide Certificate produced by the
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.20567 of 2008 & 2238 of 2012
respondent No.3, without conducting any enquiry and without giving
opportunity to him to produce relevant records to show that he is not
minor and he is major. Along with writ petition he filed election identity
card issued by the Election Authority, wherein his date of birth is
mentioned as 10.02.1962. He also filed Memo vide USR.No.118877
dated 21-12-2022 enclosing copy of the date of birth certificate issued
by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Zaheerabad, dated
16.03.2012, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 10.02.1962.
Whether the date of birth mentioned in the Bonafide Certificate issued
by the Head Master, Methodist Rural High School, Zaheerabad dated
18-03-2009 mentioning his date of birth as 15.06.1969 or date birth
mentioned in the above said certificates is correct is also disputed
question of fact and the same has to be decided by the respondent
authorities after verifying the records. The main ground for cancellation
of assignment of patta granted infavour of the petitioner that he is not
eligible for the same as he is minor and his father was already granted
assignment patta to an extent of Ac.5-00. The claim of the petitioner
is that he is major and he is residing separately and he has not
misrepresented the facts, while making application for grant of
assignment. Admittedly, the documents relied upon by him viz., Election
Identity Card and Date of Birth Certificate issued by Municipal Council
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.20567 of 2008 & 2238 of 2012
were not placed before respondent No.1, if one opportunity is given to
the petitioner no prejudice would be caused to the respondents.
13. In K. Narasimham Swamy and others (1 supra) Division Bench
of this court held that the revisional authority under Order 15(18) of
A.P.Board Standing Orders, is having a power to exercise revisional
powers, where there has been a material irregularity in the procedure or
where the decision exceeded the powers of the officer who passed it or
where it was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or
misrepresentation.
14. In Patakamuru Damodar Prasad and another's (2 supra) this
court held that if the assignee obtained the assignment patta by
misrepresenting the fact that they are landless poor persons though
they are not landless poor persons, the Government is the competent
authority to resume the land under BSO.15.
15. The principle laid down in the above said judgments are not
applicable to the case on hand at present on the ground that the
respondent No.1 passed the impugned order cancelling the assignment
patta without giving opportunity of hearing and also not conducted any
enquiry about the bonafide certificate produced by the respondent No.3.
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.20567 of 2008 & 2238 of 2012
16. In Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another (3 supra)
Hon'ble Apex Court held that where there is no prescribed time limit
under statute for exercising the revision under suo moto powers, the
authority has to exercise the powers within the reasonable period.
Whereas in the case on hand, it appears from the record and also from
the impugned order that respondent No.1 had initiated the proceedings
pursuant to the orders passed by this court in WP.Noo.33708/2010
dated 24-1-2011.
17. It is already observed supra that both the parties have raised
several disputed question of facts and the same have to be examined
and determined by the respondent authorities. Hence, to render
substantial justice to the parties, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order dated 21.01.2012 passed by respondent No.1 cancelling
the assignment patta in favour of Abdul Rasheed is required to be
examined afresh. Similarly, the order passed by Revenue Divisional
Officer dated 17.04.2008 granting permission for establishment of
poultry and dairy farm in favour of respondent No.3 is also required to
be examined by respondent No.1 afresh. Hence, both the orders are
liable to be set aside, accordingly, set aside and the District Collector,
Medak and Sanga Reddy is directed to pass orders afresh after giving
opportunity to the petitioners in W.P.No.2238 of 2012 and
W.P.No.20567 of 2008 including personal hearing, and pass appropriate
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.20567 of 2008 & 2238 of 2012
orders in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that
both the parties are entitled to place all the material evidence and also
raise all the grounds, which are available in law. Till such time, both
the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the subject
property to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts. covered by Sy.No.275/20 and 21,
Zaheerabad Village and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.
18. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of
accordingly.
In view of disposal of main writ petitions, interlocutory
applications pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.
______________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date:12.12.2023
mar
