Telangana High Court
Mohd. Jani Pasha, S/O. Yousuf Khan, vs The State Of Telangana, Rep. Principal ... on 25 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.42291 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings
No.B/3104/2016 dated 22.03.2017 issued by the
respondent No.3 in rejecting the claim of petitioner for re-
assignment of the land admeasuring to an extent of
Ac.0-30¼ gts in Sy.No.626 situated at Miryalaguda
Revenue Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, in his
favour as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
father of petitioner has purchased a part of assigned land
admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0-30¼ gts in Sy.No.626
situated at Miryalaguda Revenue Village from the original
assignee Ubbapalli Saidulu through registered sale deed
bearing document No.1964 of 1980 dated 22.07.1980 and
after his death, the petitioner has succeeded the said
SK, J
property. He submits that the respondent No.3 has issued
resumption proceedings No.B/7871/1997 dated
10.12.1997 on the ground of violation of assignment
conditions, against the dead persons i.e., original assignee
late Ubbapalli Saidulu and his father late Yousuf Khan. The
petitioner and his mother have filed suit in O.S.No.176 of
2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Miryalaguda, for declaration and the same was dismissed
on 02.07.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner and his mother
have made a representation to the respondents on
18.07.2008 for reassignment of the said land, but no action
has been taken and as such the petitioner has filed
W.P.No.18660 of 2008 and the same was disposed of on
28.08.2008. Pursuant to the said order, the representation
of petitioner was recommended by the respondent No.3-
Tahsildar vide letter No.B2/21475/09 dated 26.08.2009 to
the respondent No.2-District Collector.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner also made another representation to the
SK, J
respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 12.09.2016 for reassignment of
the subject land and as no action was taken, he also filed
W.P.No.38686 of 2016 and the same was disposed of on
28.11.2016 directing the respondent No.3 to take action
upon the representation of petitioner dated 12.09.2016.
Pursuant to the said order, the respondent No.3 has issued
impugned proceedings No.B/3104/2016 dated 22.03.2017
rejecting the request of petitioner for regularization and re-
assignment of the subject land on the ground that there
was no structure as required under G.O.Ms.No.59 Revenue
(Assn.I) Department dated 30.12.2014, the land is located
within the municipal limits which is prohibited for
assignment under G.O.Ms.No.1493 Revenue (Assn.POT)
Department dated 01.12.2007 and the land admeasuring to
an extent of Ac.0-15 gts was already alienated to rural
Police Station.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the impugned proceedings were issued against the
dead persons and also without issuing any notice to the
SK, J
petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, which is in
violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that
the ground invented by the respondent No.3 that part of
land was alienated to rural police station is contrary to the
orders of the District Collector and the date of alleged
alienation was not mentioned in the impugned proceedings.
He further submits that the petitioner's claim has to be
considered under Section 4(1) of the Amended Act No.21 of
2008 and requested to allow the writ petition by directing
the respondents to reassign the subject land to petitioner.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment
basing on the counter submits that the land in Sy.No.626
situated at Miryalaguda Village and Mandal is Government
land classified as 'Kharijkhatha' in the revenue records with
a total extent of Ac.13.10 gts and out of the said land,
Ac.12.30 gts was assigned to thirteen landless poor persons
leaving balance extent of Ac.0.20 gts in the year 1975-76.
Out of them, Ac.1.20 gts of land was assigned to Ubbapally
Saidulu as per G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue dated 25.07.1958
SK, J
with a condition of non-alienation, but he sold the land to
an extent of Ac.0.30¼ gts out of Ac.1.20 gts to the father of
petitioner vide registered document No.1964/1980
dated 22.07.1980 in contravention of Section 3(2) of the
Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and as
such, notices were issued to the petitioner and also to the
original assignee on 20.08.1997 and the same was served
on the brother of petitioner on 29.08.1997. He submits that
after hearing the case, the respondent No.3 has issued
proceedings No.D/7871/1997 dated 10.12.1997 cancelling
the patta issued in favour of the original assignee and
directed the Revenue Inspector, Miryalaguda to take over
possession of the subject land and accordingly resumed the
land and took possession of the same under cover of
panchanama on 11.12.1997. He submits that the petitioner
has not filed any appeal or revision as provided under
Section 4(A) or 4(B) of the POT Act and it attained finality.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further
submits that out of the resumed land to an extent of
SK, J
Ac.0.30¼ gts, Ac.0.15 gts of land was alienated to Rural
Police Station, Miryalaguda and Ac.0-14 ¾ gts is covered by
State High Way from Addanki to Narketpally leaving only 66
sq. yards wherein the petitioner has constructed a house
and the said land was regularized in his favour on payment
of value as per G.O.Ms.No.59 (Assignment-I) Department
dated 30.12.2014 through registered sale deed
No.5808/2016 in File No.B/206/2015 and the remaining
land of Ac.0.29 ¾ gts was covered by Rural Police Station,
Miryalaguda and State High Way from Addanki to
Narketpally and therefore, the request of petitioner for
regularization was not considered.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further
submits that the suit filed by petitioner in O.S.No.176 of
2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Miryalaguda was dismissed on 02.07.2008 and no appeal is
filed by the petitioner and as such he is not entitled for re-
assignment as per Amended Act 21 of 2008. He submits
that the Tahasildar in his letter No.B2/21475/2009
SK, J
dated 26.08.2009 has reported the fact of alienation in
favour of Rural Police Station, Miryalaguda, but he has
omitted to mention about formation of road in an extent of
Ac.0.14¾ gts which was very much existing as on that date.
He further submits that the petitioner is not landless poor
person and he is not entitled for re-assignment of subject
land as the land resumed by the Government was already
alienated in favour of Rural Police Station, Miryalaguda to
an extent of Ac.0.15 gts and Ac.0.14 ¾ gts of land is
covered by the State High Way during the year 2002 and
there is no land available on ground to consider the request
of petitioner. He further submits that the District Collector,
Nalgonda has instructed the Tahsildar, Miryalaguda vide
Lr.No.E1/9142/2009 dated 21.12.2009 to safeguard the
land as per the orders of this Court and out of the resumed
land of Ac.0.30¼ gts, 66 sq. yards was under the custody of
the petitioner by constructing a house and the same was
regularized in his favour as per G.O.Ms.No.59 Revenue
(Assignment-I) Department dated 30.12.2014. He further
submits that the subject land was already utilized for
SK, J
Government purpose six years prior to filing of
W.P.No.18660 of 2008 and pursuant to the order
dated 12.09.2016 in W.P.No.38686 of 2016, the impugned
proceedings were issued and requested to dismiss the writ
petition.
9. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this
Court is of the considered view that the in the instant writ
petition, the petitioner is questioning the proceedings
issued by the respondent No.3 dated 22.03.2017 in
rejecting the claim of petitioner with respect to
reassignment of land admeasuring to an extent of
Ac.0-30¼ gts in Sy.No.626 situated at Miryalaguda
Revenue Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. The
contention of petitioner is that his father has purchased the
land through registered document No.1964 of 1980
dated 22.07.1980 from one late Ubbapalli Saidulu, who was
the original assignee of the Government land. In view of
contravention of Section 3(2) of Telangana Assigned Lands
(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the respondent
SK, J
authorities have initiated proceedings of resumption and
taken possession of the same under cover of panchanama
on 11.12.1997 and against the said orders, the petitioner
and his family members have not filed any appeal or
revision as provided under the POT Act and as such the
resumption order has attained finality. Thereafter, out of
Ac.0.30 gts, the Government has alienated the land
admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.15 gts to Rural Police
Station Miryalaguda and Ac.0.14¾ gts of land was allotted
to State High Way from Addanki to Narketpally leaving 66
sq. yards, wherein the petitioner has constructed a house.
As per G.O.Ms.No.59 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department
dated 30.12.2014, the said land was regularized through
registered sale deed No.5808/2016 in File No.B/206/2015
and there is no land available on the ground. Moreover, the
petitioner is not a landless poor as his father has
purchased the land from the original assignee and the
authorities have initiated proceedings under POT Act in the
year 1997 and the said proceedings have become final and
subsequently the land was allotted to the Rural Police
SK, J
Station and the State High Way. Earlier, the petitioner and
his mother have filed suit in O.S.No.176 of 2002 on the file
of Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda and the same was
dismissed on 02.07.2008 and no appeal is filed against the
said Judgment and in view of the same, the petitioner is not
entitled for reassignment of the subject land.
10. The contention of the respondents is that before
filing W.P.No.18660 of 2008 and W.P.No.38686 of 2016, the
subject land was utilized by the Government and the
petitioner has not denied the said contention by showing
any document. In view of the same, without there being
any land available as on this date, the question of
reassignment of land to the petitioner does not arise and
therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by the
respondent No.3 needs no interference by this Court and
the writ petition is liable to dismissed as devoid of merits.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
SK, J
12. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand dismissed.
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date:25.06.2025
sj
