Telangana High Court

M/S. Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited, A ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 12 July, 2024

           HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

                 WRIT PETITION No.13759 OF 2008


M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited,
Registered office at 5-10-195, Fatehmaidan Road,
Hyderabad - 500 004,
Represented by Authorised Signatory and
G.P.A.Holder Sri V.Govinda Rao
S/o Late Manikyan, aged about 76 years,
R/o 17/a, Sai Master Apartment, Flat No.9,
Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad - 38

                                                              ....Petitioner
       VERSUS

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
The Department of Revenue,
Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad,
Rep., by The Principal Secretary and three others.
                                                        ... Respondents


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:              .07.2024


        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO


  1.    Whether    Reporters    of     Local         Yes/No
        newspapers may be allowed to see the
        Judgments?

  2.    Whether the copies of judgment may           Yes/No
        be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

  3.    Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish         Yes/No
        to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

                                                   _____________________
                                                 J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
                                    2


          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

                   + WRIT PETITION No.13759 OF 2008

% Dated:    .07.2024

# M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited,
Registered office at 5-10-195, Fatehmaidan Road,
Hyderabad - 500 004,
Represented by Authorised Signatory and
G.P.A.Holder Sri V.Govinda Rao
S/o Late Manikyan, aged about 76 years,
R/o 17/a, Sai Master Apartment, Flat No.9,
Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad - 38
                                             .             ....Petitioner


          VERSUS

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh,
The Department of Revenue,
Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad,
Rep., by The Principal Secretary and three others.

                                                        ... Respondents



! Counsel for Petitioner                  :    B.Nalin Kumar

^ Counsel for Respondents                  :   G.P. for Revenue

< GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? CITATIONS:

       1. 2024 (2) ALD 330 (TS)
                                            3
           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

                 WRIT PETITION No.13759 of 2008

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

"to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a Writ calling for the records resulting in the order dated 17.05.2008 in proceedings No.E4/2206/2007, passed by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, void and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Assigned Land Prohibition of Transfers Act,1977 and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the constitution of India, principles of natural justice and consequently restrain the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land Admeasuring 2 acres in Sy.No.278/79/A, 278/79/AA and 278/79E situated at Polakampally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District".

2. Heard Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land

to an extent of Acs.2.00 in Survey No.278/79/A, 278/79/AA,

278/79E situated at Polkampally village, Ibrahimpatnam

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the same was purchased

from B.Sarojamma and B.Rajashekar Reddy and Sri

B.Sudhakar Reddy through registered sale deeds vide

document No.885/98 and 887/98 dated 20.05.1998

respectively and since then the petitioner has been in

possession and enjoyment of the subject property. He further

submits that originally the above said property was assigned

in favour of Sri B.Pratap Reddy and B.Sudhakar Reddy on

12.08.1968 on payment of market value and since then they

have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property

and their names were mutated in the Revenue records,

Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds were issued and the above

said persons are not land less poor persons and they are

having their own lands to an extent of Acs.11.24 guntas in

Polkampally village and the same was reflected in Chowphasla

for the year 1970-71.

3.1. He further submits that on 11.11.1991 the Mandal

Revenue Officer addressed a letter to Sub-Treasury Officer,

Ibrahimpatnmam calling for information relating to remittance

of market value for assignment of subject land with particulars

of challans. On 12.11.1991, the Sub-Treasury Officer

confirmed the payment of amount of Rs.600/- by the assignee

B.Pratap Reddy. After his death his wife B.Sarojamma and his

son B.Rajashekar Reddy got pattadar pass books and title

deeds to an extent of Acs.1.00 and Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy got

pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of remaining

extent of Acs.1.00. On 25.10.1997, the then Mandal Revenue

Officer addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar certifying that

the subject land is a patta land and not government land. The

petitioner after due verification of the above said records

purchased the subject property by paying valuable sale

consideration and the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser.

3.2. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that,

respondent No.4 issued notice in Form-I on 14.03.2005

exercising the powers conferred under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned

Lands(Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 1977(Rules for brevity)

directing the petitioner to submit explanation as to why he

should not be evicted from the subject property within a period

of fifteen (15) days on the alleged ground that petitioner

contravened the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of

A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977(Act for

brevity). Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted

detailed explanation denying allegations made thereunder

inter-alia contending that subject property is not an assigned

land, the petitioner's vendor has purchased the property from

Government by paying market value and the then Mandal

Revenue Officer also issued certificate stating that subject

property is a private patta land and requested respondent No.4

to drop the proceedings.

3.3. He also submits that petitioner submitted application

requesting respondent No.4 to supply the certified copies of

nine(9) documents which are mentioned as below:

(i) Order of the MRO, Ibrahimpatnam sanctioning assignment of land to B. Pratap Reddy in Sy.No. 278/79 of Polkampally village.

(ii) Assignment patta certificate granted to B. Pratap Reddy in Sy.No.278/79 of Polkampally village.

(iii) Application filed by B. Pratap Reddy for grant of land in Sy.No.278/79 of Polkampally villae.

(iv) Resolution of Assignment Review Committee pertaining to assignment of the above land.

(v) Chowfasla pertaining to B. Pratap Reddy for the year during which assignment was granted to him.

(vi) Faisalpatti in which the order of assignment of above land was implemented.

(vii) Tippan pertain setwar issued for the above assigned land of B. Pratap Reddy.

(viii) Supplementary setwar issued for the above assigned land of B. Pratap Reddy.

(ix) Order of MRO, Ibrahimpatnam sanctioning mutation of the above land in favour of (1) Rajasekhar Reddy S/o Pratap Reddy (278/79/A); (2) B. Sarojani W/o Pratap Reddy (278/79/AA) and (3) B. Sudhakar Reddy S/o Narasimha Reddy (278/79/E)

3.4. He further submits that respondent No.4 without

furnishing the above said documents and without considering

the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without

verifying the records passed the resumption order on

15.07.2005, questioning the same, petitioner filed appeal

before respondent No.3 and the appellate authority also

without considering the grounds of appeal and contentions of

the petitioner dismissed the appeal on 20.01.2007. Aggrieved

by the same, petitioner filed further appeal and respondent

No.2 also without considering the contentions of the petitioner

and the grounds raised in the appeal, erroneously dismissed

the appeal by its order dated 17.05.2008.

3.5. Learned senior counsel vehemently contended that

revenue authorities have granted assignment patta in favour of

Sri B.Pratap Reddy and Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy on 12.08.1968

on payment of market value. Hence, respondent No.4 is not

entitled to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of Act.

He further contented that respondent No.4 without following

the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 3 of Rules

passed the resumption order vide proceedings No.1548/2005,

dated 15.07.2005 and the same is contrary to the provisions of

the Act and Rules made thereunder. Respondent Nos.2 and 3

without considering the grounds raised in the memorandum of

grounds of appeals simply confirmed the order of the primary

authority and the same is not permissible under law.

3.6. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel

relied upon the judgment of B.Halya Rani Vs. Special Grade

Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga

Reddy, Hyderabad and others 1.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Revenue basing on the written instructions furnished by the

Additional Collector (Revenue), Ranga Reddy District dated

03.07.2024 submits that the subject land is a government

assigned land and the same is not alienable. Respondent No.4

after following the due procedure as contemplated under the

provisions of the Act and Rules rightly passed the resumption

order on 15.07.2005 and the said order was confirmed by the

respondent No.3 on 20.01.2007 as well as respondent No.2 on

17.05.2008. The petitioner is not a land less poor person and

is not entitled to claim any relief much less the relief sought in

the writ petition.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by

respective parties and after perusal of the material available on

record, it reveals that the petitioner is claiming rights over the

property basing on the registered sale deed document bearing

887/98, executed by Sri B.Sarojamma and B.Rajashekar

Reddy to an extent of Acs.1.00 and registered sale deed vide

document bearing No.885/98 executed by B.Sudhakar Reddy

to an extent of Acs.1.00 respectively on 20.05.1998.

1 2024 (2) ALD 330 (TS)

6. It further reveals that the petitioner's vendors are

claiming the rights over the property pursuant to the

assignment patta granted by the revenue authorities on

12.08.1968 in favour of B.Pratap Reddy and B.Sudhakar

Reddy who are non other than brothers. After death of

B.Pratap Reddy, B.Sarojamma and B.Rajashkear Reddy got

pattadar passbooks to an extent of Acs.1.00 and B.Sudhakar

Reddy, got pattadar passbook and title deed to an extent of

Acs.1.00. It further reveals that the then Mandal Revenue

Officer addressed a letter to Sub-Registrar on 25.10.1997

wherein it is mentioned that the subject land is a patta land

and not a Government land.

7. Respondent No.4 initiated the proceedings exercising

the powers conferred under the Act after lapse of more than

six(6) years from the date of purchasing the subject property

and issued notice dated 14.03.2005 directing the petitioner to

submit explanation as to why he should not be evicted from

the subject property on the ground that he contravened the

provisions of the Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act.

Pursuant to the same, petitioner has submitted explanation on

09.05.2004 denying the allegations and requested him to drop

the proceedings and also requested him to furnish nine (9)

documents which are mentioned 'supra'. It appears from the

pleadings of the petitioners that the respondent No.4 has not

furnished the said documents. However, he passed

resumption order dated 15.07.2005 and the same was

confirmed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 in the appeals.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Rule 3 of

Rules respondent No.4 ought to have issued notices under

Form-I and Form-II to assignee as well as purchaser. It is

relevant to extract Rule 3 of Rules which reads as follows:

"3. Procedure for eviction of the Transferee and taking possession and restoration of Assigned Lands: The District Collector or the Authorised Officer shall, before taking action under clauses (a) and (b) sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, issue notices in Form No.I and Form No.II to the persons who have transferred and also to the persons who have acquired any assigned land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The notices shall be served by delivering a copy on transferor and transferee or some adult male member of the family of such transferor or transferee at their usual place of abode or to their authorised agent or by affixing a copy thereof at some conspicuous place of their last known place of residence or on some conspicuous part of the assigned land. After the expiry of (fifteen) 15 days specified in the notice, the District Collector or the Authorised Officer shall consider the representation, if any, received with reference to the said notice and pass such order as he thinks fit and proper. If it is held that the provisions of sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act, have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, a copy of the order shall be communicated to the Village Officer concerned under whose territorial jurisdiction that land is situated for taking possession of the land and thereupon the land shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Act."

9. The above said rule clearly mandates that the

authorized officer before taking action under clauses (a) and

(b) sub-section(1) of Section 4 of the Act, to issue notice under

Form-I and Form-II to the assignee and the purchaser of the

land.

10. In B.Halya Rani Vs. Special Grade Deputy Collector

and Revenue Divisional Officer supra, this Court held that

passing resumption order without issuing notice to the original

assignee as required under the Act and Rules, is a clear

violation of the Act as well as Rule 3 of Rules.

11. In the case on hand, respondent No.4 has not issued

any notice to the original assignee and only issued notice to

the petitioner, without following the mandatory procedure duly

prescribed under the Act and Rules and passed the

resumption order dated 15.07.2005 and the same is clear

violation of the "Rule 3" of the Rules. The appellate authorities

also without considering the same dismissed the appeals. It is

also relevant to place on record that appellate authorities while

exercising the quasi-judicial appellate powers under the

enactment, ought to have considered the grounds raised by

the parties and passed orders by giving reasons.

12. It is also relevant to place on record that respondent

No.2 has framed two issues while passing the impugned order

which read as follows:

1) Whether the land in question is Government

Land or not?

2) Whether the land in question was assigned to the predecessors in interest of the appellant subject to the condition of non-alienation and whether thereby the land in question falls within the ambit of A.P.Assigned Lands(POT) Act or not?

13. In so far as first issue is concerned, respondent No.2

without going through the entire written arguments filed by

the petitioner extracted one line from paragraph No.18 holding

that the petitioner admitted in his written arguments that the

subject land is a government land. After perusal of the written

arguments filed by the petitioner, it reveals that the petitioner

had submitted that the subject land is a government land and

the same was assigned in favour of the petitioner's vendor on

payment of market value and respondent No.4 is not entitled

to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of the Act and

the same are not applicable. Hence, the reasoning given by

respondent No.2 in the impugned order in respect of issue