Telangana High Court
Korani Ravinder vs State Of Telangana on 2 May, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.21467 OF 2023
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Prabhakar Peri, learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned Advocate General appearing for respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the
respondent No. 3 in proposing to conduct e-auction on 10.08.2023
in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 of
Budvel Village Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as
part of Plot Nos. 14 and 15 ( for short, the subject property'),
without issuance of notice, as illegal; to declare inaction of the
respondent Nos.2, 4 to 6 in considering the representations filed by
the petitioners for rectification of revenue records as illegal;
consequently direct the respondent No.3 not to conduct any
auction/e-auction in respect of the land of father of the petitioners
on 10.08.2023, not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment
of father of the petitioners over his land, to consider the
representations submitted by father of the petitioners for
rectification of entries in the revenue records and mutating their
names in revenue records.
3. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONERS IN BRIEF:-
i. They belong to Scheduled Caste community. Their father
is landless poor.
ii. Government has taken over possession of surplus land to
an extent of Ac. 281.61 guntas belongs to Raufuddin
Hussain and Zakia Hussain, vide proceedings
No.CC/411/75 and CC/412/75 of Land Reforms Tribunal,
Hyderabad West Taluk, Ranga Reddy District, in terms
of provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act, 1973).
iii. The land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4
situated at Budwel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'the
subject property'), was allotted to the father of the
petitioners i.e. Sri Korani Ganesh, in the year 1978
subject to payment of Rs.375/- as per Section 14 (2) of
the Act, 1973 in 13 equal annual instalments to the
Government within 15 years from the date of the said
allotment.
iv. Their father paid the said amount and became absolute
owner and possessor of the land. His name was also
mutated in the revenue records. Pattadar passbooks and
title deeds were also issued in favour of their father. His
name was also reflected in the I-B Register and pahanies.
However, due to reasons best known to their father, in the
pahanies, after 1997-98, subject land is mentioned as
'Kharij khata' but their father's name was not mentioned.
v. Father of the petitioners has submitted several
representations including representations dated
22.11.2019, 08.02.2020 to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 with
a request to include his name in the pahanies. The same
were not considered.
vi. The said land was not acquired for any other purpose and
resumption proceedings were not passed.
vii. They placed reliance on the information obtained by them
under RTI Act. In the year 1997, show cause notices were
issued to the allotees of land in Sy.No.282 to 289 alleging
violation of the rules and proposing to resume possession
of the land. However, his father did not receive any such
notice. The allottees who received the notices filed writ
petition vide W.P.No.8612 of 2000 questioning the said
notices. The said notices were set aside permitting the
petitioners therein to submit explanations. 5th respondent
passed proceedings No. D/3301/2000, dated 15.11.2002.
Challenging the said proceedings, 23 allottees filed writ
petition vide W.P.No.24120/2002. Vide order dated
30.04.2008, this Court set aside the said proceedings
holding that the 5th respondent - RDO, Rajendra Nagar,
did not follow the procedure laid down under law.
viii. In the month of March/April, 2023, some of the officials
of the Revenue Department came to their house and the
subject land asking them to sign certain documents
relinquishing their rights on the said land but the
petitioners have refused.
ix. 3rd respondent has erected hoarding in the said area
proposing to sell 100 acres of land by dividing them into
14 plots proposing to conduct e-auction on 28.082023.
x. The petitioners came to know about the subject land
forming part of the plot Nos.14 and 15 was proposed to
be auctioned. On enquiry, they came to know that 3rd
respondent has issued a paper notification in leading daily
newspaper on 02.08.2023 proposing to conduct auction
of 100 acres consisting of 14 plots by e-auction dated
10.08.2023.
xi. Challenging the said auction, the petitioners filed the
present writ petition contending that they are in
possession of the subject property. No resumption
proceedings were issued, the subject land was not
acquired by respondents by following the due procedure
laid down under law and thus conducting auction of the
said properties on 10.08.2023 is arbitrary, illegal and in
violation of the procedure laid down under law.
xii. They also specifically contend that their father is
suffering with paralysis and he is in hospital and
therefore he is not in a position to sign the writ affidavit.
4. Whereas, respondent Nos.2, 4 to 6, filed counters
contended as follows:-
i. The land in question falls in Sy.Nos.288 to 289 situated
in Budwel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District. Total extent of the said land of 281.61 is
in the names of Raufuddin Hussain and Zakia Hussain.
ii. The said land is declared as ceiling surplus land. The
same was taken over by the Government under the Act,
1973.
iii. The same was assigned to 66 landless poor for
agricultural purpose.
iv. The father of the petitioners is also one of the 66
assignees.
v. In the year 1997, a notice was issued to all the 66
assignees including the father of the petitioners, for
violation of assignment rules.
vi. As they failed to cultivate the lands, made the said land
into plots in contravention of the provisions of the
assignment of lands under the Act, 1973, the said land
was resumed by following the procedure laid down under
law.
vii. After passing the resumption orders, respondents evicted
all the 66 assignees in Sy.Nos.282 to 299/P of Budwel
Village, and resumed the same as per the orders of the
RDO, Chevella Division vide F.No. D/5062/97, dated
17.04.1998.
viii. 165 acres in Sy.No.282 to 290 and 296/P falling in
Budwel Village, was taken over possession by the then
HUDA on 26.12.2007.
ix. Vide G.O. Ms. No.13, Industries and Commerce (IP and
INF) Department, dated 10.06.2021, government has
issued instructions on disposal of Government vacant
lands under the control of various departments in the
State which are not required for any public purposes.
x. Since they are in prime locations, prone to unauthorized
encroachments, an extent of land admeasuring Ac.100
was made into layouts comprising 17 plots. The same
was put to auction.
xi. Therefore, the petitioners cannot file the present writ
petition.
xii. The RDO, Chevella has issued Memo No. C/3483/2012
dated 22.11.2012 to the father of the petitioners stating
that as per the records, the land in Sy.Nos.282 to 299
covering an extent of Ac.165.00 guntas has been allotted
to HUDA and Ac.91.00 guntas was allotted to Tourism
department vide Government Memo No.38539 (Assn.VI)
Dept/2009, dated 12.10.2009 and on the ground that the
land is under possession of HUDA and Tourism
Department. Therefore, the issuance of passbooks and
title deeds with respect of subject property in favour of
the petitioners' father does not arise.
xiii. Aggrieved by the orders of RDO, Chevella, vide
D/5062/1997, the Assignees i.e. Gunti Narsimha and 19
others, filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.8612 of 2000.
This Court disposed of the said writ petition setting aside
the said proceedings, with a direction to the petitioners
therein to submit explanation to the show cause notice
dated 19.11.1997 and thereafter, directed the RDO,
Chevella to pass orders afresh. Till then, the petitioners
therein shall not be evicted.
xiv. In compliance of the said order, the RDO, Chevella
passed order dated 15.11.2002 holding that the petitioners
therein/Assignees violated the conditions of the
assignment. Therefore, the RDO, Chevella, directed the
MRO, Rajendra Nagar, to evict the assignees and resume
the land and to keep the same under Government custody.
xv. Challenging the said resumption proceedings dated
15.11.2002, Gunti Narsimha and 19 others/assignees filed
a writ petition vide W.P.No.24120 of 2002. Vide order
dated 30.04.2008, this Court set aside the said
proceedings on imposition of costs. The petitioners'
father is not a party to the same.
xvi. Smt. G.Yadamma, one of the Assignees also filed writ
petition No.23719 of 2003 challenging the proceedings
dated 17.04.1998 and the same was also allowed.
However, this Court granted liberty to the respondents to
initiate fresh action by following the procedure laid down
under law.
5. The respondents have also filed additional counter
contending as follows:-
i. The petitioners' father is not a party to the aforesaid two
writ petitions and therefore, resumption orders passed
against the father of the petitioners attained finality.
ii. The District Collector, i..e 4th respondent herein vide
letter dated 02.11.2007 has handed advance possession of
land admeasuring Ac.164.35 guntas in Sy.No.282 to 290
and 296/P situated at Budwel Village to HUDA and
Ac.91.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.291 to 295, 296/P, 297, 298
and 299/2 to the Tourism Department.
iii. Thereafter, the assignees and encroachers have formed
into an Association of land losers, in the name of
'Arundati Welfare Association (Regd.No.1889 of
2007),of the subject lands, approached the Tahsildar and
HUDA requesting to enter into an agreement for a
package i.e. 66 Assignees, who have pattadar passbooks
shall be given 800 sq.yards in HMDA developed layout
in lieu of the land lost and for the 82 encroachers who do
not possess any title, an extent of 200 sq.yards be
allotted.
iv. The said Association represented by its President Sri
Kurani Balraj, President, gave consent affidavit on
23.10.2010 in the presence of Sri K.Sadanandan @
K.S.Nandan (Ex-President) stating that they have agreed
for the above package for that they undertake to
relinquish all their rights over the above lands and abide
by the terms and conditions imposed by the Government
and also withdraw the cases pending in the Courts. The
said consent affidavit was handed over to the Members of
said Association including the father of the petitioners.
v. Vide proceedings dated 31.12.2022, 4th respondent
/District Collector demarcated the land and given
possession to Assignees of 800 sq.yards each and 200 sq.
yards each to the encroachers through open lottery, as
compensation subject to relinquishment of their rights
over the land and withdrawal of Court cases, if any.
vi. In the said open lottery, father of the petitioners was
given 800 sq.yards and the petitioner No.1 got 200
sq.yards since his name was in encroachment list.
Conveyance deeds were executed in favour of the
assignees and encroachers. 1st petitioner and petitioners'
father did not obtain conveyance deeds.
vii. The petitioners, having knowledge of the aforesaid
proceedings dated 31.12.2022, 26.04.2022, filed the
present writ petition. Therefore, it is devoid of merits.
6. The petitioners filed replies to the counter affidavits
denying the said allegations.
7. Both Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Advocate General
made their submissions extensively.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the
principle laid down by the Apex Court in the State of Orissa vs.
Binapani Dei 1.
9. Learned Advocate General places reliance on the principle
laid down by the Apex Court in Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip
Singh Ubain2, Yadaiah vs. State of Telangana 3 and the Division
Bench judgment of this Court in Yesaiah died by legal heirs vs.
Mandal Revenue Officer4.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
10. The aforesaid rival contentions and also perusal of the
record would reveal that owners of land in Sy.Nos.282 to 289 of
Budwel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District i.e.
Raufuddin Hussain and Zakia Hussain, filed declaration under the
provisions of the Act, 1973. Vide order dated 27.06.1977, the
primary Tribunal determined the said surplus land holding to an
AIR 1967 SC 1269
(1997) 7 SCC 44
(2023) 10 SCC 755
(2023) SCC OnLine TS 3558
extent of 289 acres, and declared that the said surplus land to have
vested in the State to be disposed of in terms under Section 14 of
the Act. The land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 of
Budwel Village was allotted to father of the petitioners herein and
65 persons (allottees), under the provisions of the Act, 1973.
According to the petitioners, their father had paid value of the land
in installments as per the said allotment order. The said facts were
also admitted by respondent Nos.4 to 6 in their counter and
additional counter.
11. Perusal of record would also reveal that the pattadar
passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of father of the
petitioners in respect of Ac.4.19 guntas. His name was also
mentioned in I-B Register and Pahanies. Thereafter, the
petitioners' father submitted several representations including
representation dated 18.06.2024 and 07.12.2020 requesting
revenue authorities to continue his name in the revenue records by
deleting the same from Karij Khatha. The said writ petitions are
pending.
12. It is also not in dispute that the RDO, Chevella Division
has issued notices to several assignees alleging that they have
assigned land to them and SK Developers are making the same into
plots. Thus, they have contravened the provisions of assignment
under Section 14 of the Act, 1973. The said notices were issued
under Section 14(5) of the Act, 1973. Some of the assignees
asserting that notices were served on them and when revenue
officials tried to dispossesses them, they filed a writ petition vide
W.P.Nos.8612 of 2000 assailing the notice dated 19.11.1997. Vide
order dated 29.09.2000, this Court disposed of the said writ petition
setting aside the said notice dated 19.11.1997 and permitting the
petitioners herein to submit explanations within the stipulated time
and directed the respondents therein to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. The petitioners in the said writ petition filed
joint explanation denying the allegations. They have also submitted
written representation on 29.10.2002 through their counsel. The
same were not considered. However, vide proceedings
No.D/3701/2000 dated 15.11.2000, the RDO, Chevella passed
resumption orders. Vide order dated 30.04.2008, this Court set
aside the resumption proceedings dated 16.11.2002 of RDO,
Chevella imposed costs of Rs.2,500/- and also directed the State or
appropriate agency to determine the liability of the officer and
recover the same from him.
13. Perusal of record would also reveal that one Smt.
K.Yadamma, assignee filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.9646 of
2000 challenging the resumption order dated 17.04.1998 of 5th
respondent herein. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order
dated 23.04.2001 granting liberty to the petitioner therein to prefer
an appeal. Thereafter, she has filed an appeal before the Joint
Collector challenging the said resumption orders. Vide order
dated 18.10.2003, Joint Collector dismissed the said appeal.
Challenging the said proceedings, Smt. Yadamma filed writ
petition vide W.P.No.23179 of 2003. Vide order dated 16.08.2013,
this Court allowed the said writ petition setting aside the
resumption proceedings dated 17.04.1998 confirmed by the Joint
Collector vide proceedings dated 18.10.2003. however, this Court
granted liberty to the respondents therein to initiate fresh
proceedings strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down
under law by issuing notice and reasonable opportunity to the
petitioner therein.
14. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners' father is not
a party to the writ petition vide W.P.No.8612 of 2000, 24120 of
2002, 23179 of 2003 but it is the specific contention of the
petitioners herein that notice was not served on the petitioners'
father. The subject land was not resumed from the petitioners'
father without following the due procedure laid down under law.
15. According to the respondents 4 to 6, they have also
resumed the land by following the due procedure, handed over it to
HUDA and Tourism Department.
16. In the light of the said submission, as discussed supra, it
is not in dispute that the owners of land in Sy.Nos.282 to 289 of
Budvel Village filed declaration in terms of Act, 1973 vide order
dated 27.06.1977, primary Tribunal, determined surplus land
holding to an extent of 289 acres and declared the surplus land to
have vested in the State to be disposed of in terms of Section 14 of
the Act, 1973. It is also not in dispute that the land admeasuring
Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 of Budwel Village was allotted to
the father of the petitioners in terms of Section 14 of the Act, 1973
for the purpose of doing agriculture. If any alienations effected or
other acts done in respect of any land in violation of the conditions
specified in terms of Sections 14 (4) of the Act, 1973, it shall be
null and void and the Tahsildar shall resume the land after giving
an opportunity to the persons effected on making representation in
the said behalf.
17. It is also relevant to note that Section 14 of the Act, 1973
deals with the disposal of the land vested under the Act, the same is
relevant and the same is extracted below:-
14. Disposal of land vested in Government -
(1) The lands vested in the Government under this Act shall be
allotted for use as house-sites for agricultural labourers, village
artisans or other poor persons owning no houses or house-sites,
or transferred to the weaker sections of the people dependent on
agriculture for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary
thereto, in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that as far as may be practicable, not less than
one half of the total extent of land so allotted or transferred
shall be allotted or transferred to the members of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and out of the balance, not less
than two-thirds shall be allotted or transferred to the members
of the backward classes of citizens notified by the Government
for purposes of clause (4) of article 15 of the Constitution.
(2) The land allotted to a person for the use of house-site or
transferred for agriculture or for the purposes ancillary thereto,
shall be assigned free of cost.
(3) XXXX
(4) Any transfer of the land under this section shall be subject
to-
(i) the condition that the land shall not be alienated by the
transferee by way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease or in any
manner whatsoever otherwise than by way of mortgage in
favour of the Government a bank or a co-operative society,
including a land mortgage bank; and
(ii) the condition that where the land transferred is an orchard,
the transferee shall continue to maintain such land as an
orchard; and
(iii) such other conditions as may be prescribed.
(5) Any alienation effected or other act done in respect of any
land in violation of the conditions specified in sub-section (4)
shall be null and void; and the Tahsildar shall resume the land
after giving an opportunity to the persons affected of making a
representation in this behalf.
(6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Government
may-
(i) lease out any land vesting in them under this Act for such
purposes and on such terms and conditions as may be specified
by them; or
(ii) reserve such land for any common use or benefit of the
community, or,
(iii) utilize/sell such lands for infrastructure/industrial
development or any such public purpose.
18. Thus, if there is any violation of conditions by the father
of the petitioners or the other assignees/allottees, respondents have
power to resume the same by following the procedure laid down
under law including issuing notice and affording them an
opportunity. The A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers)
Act, 1977 ( for short, 'the Act, 1977') also deals with the procedure
for prohibition of transfer of assigned lands.
19. Section 3 of the Act, 1977 deals with prohibition of
transfers of assigned lands Section 4 of the said Act, deals with
consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3 and the same are
extracted below:-
Section 3: Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands -
(1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act any land
has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for
purposes of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force
or in the deed of transfer or other document relating to such land, it
shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been
transferred; and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land
shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer.
(2) No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land, and no
person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift, Lease
(except in the case of Lease to the Andhra Pradesh Green Energy
Corporation Ltd., for use as deemed fit and including for usage of
non-agriculture purpose), mortgage, exchange or otherwise.
2A. No assignee shall transfer any assigned house site, and no person
shall acquire any assigned house site, either by purchase, gift, Lease
(except in the case of Lease to the Andhra Pradesh Green Energy
Corporation Ltd., for use as deemed fit and including for usage of
non-agriculture purpose)], mortgage, exchange or otherwise, till
completion of the period of 20 years from the date of assignment.
2B. Where the assigned House site was alienated by the assignee as
on the date of commencement of this Act, such house site shall be
regularized in favour of the alienee as a one-time measure.
2C. The eligible family shall be assigned house site only once in life
time.
(3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provision
of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) shall be
deemed to be null and void.
(4) The Provisions of this section shall apply to any transaction of the
nature referred to in sub-section (2) in execution of a decree or order
of a civil court or of any award or order of any other authority.
(5) Nothing in this section shall apply to an assigned land which was
purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable
consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the
commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such
person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site on the date of
such commencement.
Section 4. Consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3 -
(1) If, in any case, the District Collector or any other officer not
below the rank of a Mandal Revenue Officer, authorised by him in
this behalf, is satisfied that the provisions of sub-section (1) of
section 3, have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, he
may, by order
(a) take possession of the assigned land after evicting the
person in possession after such written notice as the Collector
or Mandal Revenue Officer may deem reasonable and any crop
or other produce raised on such land shall be liable to forfeiture
and any building or other construction erected or anything
deposited, thereon shall also be forfeited, if not removed by
him, after such notice, as the Collector or the Mandal Revenue
Officer may direct Forfeitures under this section shall be
adjudged by the Collector or Mandal Revenue Officer and any
property forfeited shall be disposed of as the Collector or
Mandal Revenue Officer may direct; and;
(b) (i): reassign the said resumed land, other than those
lands/areas as may be notified by the Government from time to
time in public interest and for public purpose, to the transferee
who purchased the land in good faith and for valuable
consideration on or before 29th January, 2007, subject to the
condition that he/she is landless poor person, and is in
occupation of the land by using the said land for agriculture or
as house site, as on the date of taking possession by eviction:
Provided that the reassignment in case of transferee
shall be limited to only such an extent that the total holding of
the reassignee including any other land held by him/her does
not exceed 5.00 Acres dry land or 2 ½ Acres wet land:
Provided further that where the transferee who has
purchased the land and got reassignment of it, or his legal heir,
transfers the reassigned land, the land shall be resumed for
assignment to the other eligible landless poor:
(ii) restore the said assigned land, other than those lands/areas
as may be notified by the Government from time to time in
public interest and for public purpose, to the original assignee,
subject to the condition that he or she is landless poor person as
on the date of restoration for one time; or
(iii) assign to other eligible landless poor person:
Provided that the restoration of land shall be limited to
only such an extent that the total holding including any other
land held by him/her does not exceed 5.00 Acres dry land or 2
½ Acres wet land:
Provided further that where the original assignee or his
legal heir, after first restoration transfers the assigned land, the
land shall be resumed for assignment to the other eligible
landless poor:
Provided also that if no eligible landless poor persons
are available in the village/area, the resumed land will be
utilised for public purpose.
Explanation: For the purpose of this clause "Public Interest"
and "Public Purpose" shall mean and include, the Weaker
Section Housing, Public Utility, Infrastructure Development,
promotion of industries and Tourism or for any other public
purpose;
C. In the areas which may be notified by Government from
time to time, time, lands resumed under clause 4(a) above, shall
be utilized for public purpose.
(2) An eviction under sub-section (1) shall be made by serving a
notice in the manner prescribed in section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh
Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Act II of 1864), or in any such other
manner as the State Government may direct, on the person reputed to
be in occupation or his agent requiring him within such time as the
Collector or the Mandal Revenue Officer may deem reasonable after
receipt of the said notice to vacate the land, and, if such notice is not
obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate to remove any person
who may refuse to vacate the same, and if the officer removing any
such person shall be resisted or obstructed by any person, the
Collector shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case and
if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just
cause and that such resistance or obstruction still continues, may
issue a warrant for arrest of the said person and on his appearance
commit him to close custody in the office of the Collector or of any
Mandal Revenue Officer for such period not exceeding thirty days as
may be necessary to prevent the continuance of such obstruction or
resistance or may send him with a warrant in the form of schedule for
imprisonment in the civil jail of the District for the like period:
Provided that no person so committed or imprisoned under this
section shall be liable to be prosecuted under sections 183, 186 or
188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act No.45 of 1860) in
respect of the same facts.
(3) Any person who unauthorisedly re-enters and occupies any land
from which he was evicted under this section, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend upto six months or with
fine upto rupees five thousand or with both.
(4). Any order passed in revision under section 4B and subject to
such order, the decision in appeal under section 4A and subject to the
said orders in revision and appeal, any order passed under sub-section
(1) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law and
no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any
proceeding taken or about to be taken by any officer or authority or
Government in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this
Act.
(5) For the purposes of this section, where any assigned land is in
possession of a person, other than the original assignee or his legal
heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that there is a
contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3.
4A. APPEAL -
(1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Mandal Revenue
officer under sub-section (1) of section 4, may within ninety days
from the date of receipt by him of such order appeal to the Revenue
Divisional Officer.
(2) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer under sub-section (1) of section 4 may, within
ninety days from the date of receipt by him of such order appeal to
the District Collector.
4B. REVISION -
(1) The District Collector may in respect of any proceeding not being
a proceeding covered by sub-section (2) of section 4A on an
application made to him and the Government may in respect of any
proceedings either suo motu or on an application made to them, call
for and examine the record of any officer subordinate to him or them
to satisfy himself or themselves as to the regularity of such
proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or
order taken or passed therein, and if in any case, it appears to the
District Collector or as the case may be to the Government that any
such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or
remitted for reconsideration, they may pass orders accordingly:
Provided that every application for the exercise of the powers under
this section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on
which the proceeding, decision or order to which the application
relates was communicated to the applicant.
(2) No order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under
sub section (1), unless such person has been given an opportunity of
making his representation.
(3) The District Collector or the Government as the case may be, may
also suspend the execution of the decision or order pending exercise
of their power under sub-section (1).
20. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 are contending that father of
the petitioners and other assignees/allottees violated the conditions
of allotment/assignment and therefore, the resumption orders were
issued.
21. As discussed supra, vide proceedings dated 15.04.1998,
the RDO, Chevella, passed resumption orders directing the
authorized MRO, Rajendra Nagar to take possession of the land to
government custody. It was addressed to the individuals, making a
copy to the MRO, Rajendra Nagar. But the name of the petitioners'
father is not there. It was not marked to the father of the petitioner.
They have not filed any documents to show that the notice and the
said resumption proceedings dated 15.04.1998 were served on the
petitioners' father. However, Sri G.Narsimha and 19 others filed
writ petition vide W.P.No.8612 of 2000 challenging the show
cause notice dated 19.11.1997 and the said resumption proceedings
dated 15.04.1998. This Court allowed the said writ petition setting
aside the said show cause notice and directed the petitioners therein
to submit explanation within four (4) weeks to the said show cause
notice and directed the respondents therein to consider the same
and dispose of. Till such time, this Court directed the respondents
therein not to evict the petitioners therein in the subject land which
are in their possession. Thereafter, the RDO, Chevella passed
resumption dated 15.11.2002. The said G.Narsimha and others
filed writ petition vide W.P.No.24120 of 2002 challenging the said
resumption proceedings. Vide order dated 30.04.2008, this Court
allowed the said writ petition setting aside the proceedings dated
15.11.2002 on imposition of costs on RDO, Chevella.
22. The said facts would reveal that resumption proceedings
were passed without putting father of the petitioners and other
assignees on notice and affording them an opportunity. Now the
respondents cannot contend that the petitioners' father did not
challenge the resumption proceedings.
23. It is also further contended by the respondents that father
of the petitioners and other assignees/allottees formed into an
Association in the name of and style of 'Arundati Welfare
Association (Regd.No.1889 of 2007), requested the respondent
authorities to allot 800 sq.yards of developed area to the
allottees/assignees who have documents such as pattadar
passbooks and title deeds and 200 sq.yards to the encroachers who
are in possession of the property. They further contended that the
President of the said Association submitted affidavits stating that
they would withdraw the Court cases if any, and also abide by the
said undertaking. They have also submitted list of
beneficiaries/assignees/allottees. The name of the petitioners'
father is also there. As per the said understanding, respondents
have allotted 800 and 200 sq.yards and also executed two
conveyance deeds in their favour. In proof of the same,
respondents filed copies of three deeds of conveyance all dated
03.06.2023 and also places reliance on memo dated 26.04.2022 and
proceedings dated 31.12.2022.
24. It is the specific contention of the petitioners herein that
neither the petitioners nor their father is aware of the said facts.
They did not give any authorization to the President of the said
Association. The signature of the petitioners' father was forged.
However, no conveyance deed was executed in favour of the
petitioners' father. Even the 1st petitioner is in possession of 200
sq.yards other than the aforesaid subject property. Conveyance
deed was not executed in favour of the 1st petitioner.
25. It is also relevant to note that the President of the said
Association Sri Kurani Balraj, Sri K.Sadanandan @ K.S.Nandan
(Ex-President) filed W.P.No.29071 of 2024 against the respondents
herein and M/s Prestige Projects Private Limited to declare the
action of respondent Nos.1 to 7 in not conducting survey and
Panchanama and demarcating 26 Acres of land in Survey Nos. 282,
283, 284 as per proceedings No. LC1/6568/2008 dated 31/12/2022,
further not demarcating the plots of land conveyed in favour, 66
Assignees and encroachers as per conveyance deeds executed in
their favour and handover the same to the assignees/allottees as
illegal. They sought a consequential direction to them to conduct
survey, Panchanama and handover the respective plots of land to
the assignees/allottees as per their conveyance deeds or in the
alternative declare that the action of the State in conducting e-
auction dated 10.08.2023 without demarcating the land
admeasuring Ac 26.00 Gts, in Sy. Nos. 282, 283 and 294 and
handing over the same to the allottees as illegal. They also sought
to declare the documents executed in favour of 8th respondent
therein i.e. M/s Prestige Project Private Limited and others bearing
document No.12519/2023, 11519/23, 11520/23, dated 08.12.2023
and 01.11.2023 respectively as null and void. They also sought for
consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 to 7 therein to hand
over the respective extents of land to all the original assignees of
the land as per their original assignment deeds. The said writ
petition is pending.
26. The aforesaid facts would reveal that respondents though
claimed that the petitioners' father violated the allotment
conditions and transferred the subject property to S.K. Developers,
resumption proceedings were issued by following due procedure
laid down under the Act, 1977 and Act, 1973, but they have not
filed any documents in proof of the same. Respondent Nos.4 to 6
have to mandatorily follow the procedure laid down under law and
if there is any violation of conditions of allotment/assignment by
the father of the petitioners. They cannot pass resumption orders
without following due procedure. They cannot rely upon the
affidavits/undertakings given by the President and former President
of the aforesaid Association. They have to specifically verify with
regard to consent, if any, given by the father of the petitioners to
submit the said undertaking to the President and Ex-President of
aforesaid Association and whether the father of the petitioners is a
Member of the said Association or not.
27. Even according to the respondent Nos.3 to 6, the subject
land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 situated at
Budwel Village was assigned to father of the petitioners.
Therefore, necessarily they have to follow the procedure laid down
under Act, 1977 and Act, 1973 if the father of the petitioners
violates any conditions of allotment. It is the specific case of the
petitioners that their father never sold the subject property to S.K.
Developers as alleged by respondents. Even then, respondents did
not file any proof to substantiate their contentions. Without
considering the said aspects, respondent Nos.3 issued the subject e-
auction notice dated 02.08.2023 proposing auction to be conducted
on 10.08.2023.
28. It is also apt to note that this Court vide order dated
09.08.2023 directed 3rd respondent to proceed with the auction to
be held on 10.08.2023, however, they are directed to make an
endorsement in sale of the allotment letter in respect of plots 14
and 15 stating that the said plots will be confirmed subject to
outcome of the writ petition.
29. It is also relevant to note that the successful bidders in
respect of plot Nos.14 and 15 filed a writ petition vide
W.P.No.26823 and 27310 of 2024 alleging that 3rd respondent did
not inform filing of the said writ petition by the petitioners herein,
interim order dated 09.08.2023 granted by this Court to them.
Though the 3rd respondent in the tender notification dated
02.08.2023 stated that the subject property is unencumbered, there
is no litigation. They have not informed the said fact to them. They
have paid the entire amount in terms of the auction notice.
Thereafter, they came to know about the pendency of the present
writ petition and interim order granted by this Court. Therefore,
they have filed the aforesaid two writ petitions to refund the
amount paid by them along with the interest at the rate of 18% in
respect of plot Nos.14 and 15.
30. Perusal of the proceedings dated 31.12.2022 would
reveal that vide order dated 30.04.2008 in W.P.No.24120 of 2002,
this Court set aside the resumption proceedings dated 15.11.2002
of RDO, Chevella Division.
31. Vide proceedings dated 18.12.2008, 6th
respondent/Tahsildar informed 4th respondent/the District Collector
that 66 assignees and 82 encroachers are the land losers of the
subject land, they have agreed as per package and accepted the plot
compensation as follows:-
a. For Nos.66 assignees who are having pattadar passbooks
an extent of 800 sq.yards in HUDA (HMDA) developed
lay out is to be allotted in lieu of land lost by them.
b. For Nos.82 encroachers/cultivators who do not possess
any title, an extent of 200 sq.yards be allotted in lieu of
the land lost.
c. 3rd respondent/Metropolitan Commissioner, HMDA has
submitted a report dated 04.08.2009 to the 1st respondent
stating that 3rd respondent has taken over advance
possession of the government land to an extent of 164.35
guntas in Sy.No.282 to 290 and 296 of Budwel village,
Rajendra Nagar Mandal. He stated that as the lands are
covered by Court litigations, it is decided to negotiate
with the assignees/allottees for compensation settlement.
The Committee of the District Collector, Tahsildar,
Rajendranagar Mandal, Estate Officer, HMDA was
negotiated with the assignees for compensation
settlement.
d. 66 Assignees and 82 encroachers/cultivators have agreed
for settlement for rehabilitation depending upon the
planning regulations of HMDA on the assumption that
the 60% of the land can be plotted.
e. Vide memos dated 19.08.2011 and 16.04.2012,
Government which forwarding a copy of representation
filed by the Members of Arundhati Welfare Association
(Land Losers) and requested to examine the plea made by
the assignees for providing additional land to an extent of
Ac.4.00 guntas, in addition to the land of Ac.22.05 guntas
already handed over and furnish a detailed report through
CCLA for taking further action in the matter.
f. Vide letter dated 07.06.2014, he sent a detailed report to
CCLA stating that as per the calculation with reference to
HMDA norms for plot compensation with HMDA
developed layout, total extent for 66 assignees at the rate
of 800 sq.yards and 82 encroachers at the rate of 200
sq.yards is arrived at Ac.26.05 guntas but only an extent
of Ac.22.03 guntas has been compensated by both the
departments i.e. HUDA and Tourism Department. Thus,
there is shortfall of Ac.4.02 guntas. Therefore, he sought
CCLA to issue necessary orders whether to reduce the
extents of plot compensation to 700sq.yards and
150sq.yards respectively along with alienable rights as
against proposed extents of 800 and 200 sq.yards and also
issue orders with regard to additional land to an extent of
Ac.4.02 guntas.
g. There is also reference to the communication of minutes
of TSMLA dated 07.11.2006 by CCLA.
h. Ultimately, vide memo dated 26.04.2022, Government
permitted the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District for
utilization of the land for Ac.26.00 guntas in a corner of
the subject land without disturbing the connectivity for
the remaining land of Ac.255.00 guntas duly keeping in
view of the interests of Government, for making the said
land of Ac.26.00 guntas into plots and to allot the same to
the subject assignees and encroachers as compensation,
subject to relinquishment of their rights over the land and
withdrawal of court cases, if any.
i. It is also further stated that the balance land to an extent
of Ac. 255.00 guntas in subject land shall be reserved for
future requirement of the Government and same allocated
including IT and or others.
j. President, Telangana raithu Sangham, Budwel Village
has submitted representation dated 14.11.2022,
15.11.2022 to the Government stating that the
Government has acquired the land to an extent of
Ac.280.00 guntas and handed over to the HMDA and
Tourism Department promising to allot plot
compensation to 66 assignees at the rate of 800 sq. yards
and to 82 encroachers at the rate of 200 sq.yards per acre.
k. He has further requested to allot the land to an extent of
Ac.26.00 guntas out of total extent of Ac.284.00 guntas
in Sy.Nos.282 to 299 of Budwel village as per the
government agreement for the land-lost Dalith farmers of
land victims.
l. There is also reference to the survey conducted by
Mandal Surveyor and location sketch submitted by him.
Referring to the same, in the proceedings dated
31.12.2022, 4th respondent/District Collector stated that
as per the orders of the Government dated 26.04.2022, 6th
respondent was directed to demarcate the land to an
extent of Ac.26.00 in Sy.Nos. 282, 283, 284 as per the
sketch submitted by the Mandal Surveyor, Gandipet
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and hand over possession
of the same to HMDA for making the subject land into
plots and allot the same to 66 Assignees at the rate of 800
sq.yards per Assignee, 82 encroachers at the rate of 200
sq.yards through lottery/draw and hand over to the
assignees/encroachers as compensation, subject to
relinquishment of their rights over the land and
withdrawal of Court Cases, if any.
32. The aforesaid proceedings dated 31.12.2022 of 4th
respondent /District Collector and memo dated 26.04.2022 of Chief
Secretary to Government are in violation of principles of natural
justice and procedure laid down under POT Act, 1977 and Act,
1973. In the list of patta holders mentioned in memo dated
26.04.2022, the name of the petitioners' father is not there. The
petitioners' father was not put on notice and opportunity was not
even afforded. Even, according to respondent Nos.2 to 6, 1st
petitioner is in possession of land in the aforesaid survey numbers
of Budwel Village. Therefore, he is entitled to 200 sq.yards of land.
The same was not assigned.
33. At the cost of repetition, as stated supra, the said Kurani
Balraj, President, and Sri K.Sadanandan @ K.S.Nandan (Ex-
President) of Association gave consent affidavits on 23.10.2010.
The Said Kurani Balraj, President of Association has filed a writ
petition vide W.P.No.29071 of 2024 against the respondents
therein to declare the action of the Respondents in not conducting
survey and Panchanama and demarcating Ac.26.00 guntas of land
in Survey Nos. 282, 283, 284, as per proceedings No.LC1/6568/
2008 dated 31/12/2022 and further not demarcating the plots of
land conveyed in favour of 66 Assignees and 82 encroachers as per
conveyance deeds executed in their favour and handover the same
to the assignees / allottees, as illegal and consequently direct them
to do so and for certain other reliefs.
34. In the light of the same, the entire action of respondents
in issuing auction notice dated 02.08.2023 conducting auction on
10.08.2023 is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of procedure
laid down under law.
35. K. Yadamma, filed W.P.No.23179 of 2003 challenging
the resumption proceedings dated 17.04.1998 passed by the RDO,
Chevella, confirmed by the Joint Collector, dated 18.10.2003. Vide
order darted 16.08.2013 this Court set aside the aforesaid
resumption proceedings and granted liberty to the respondents
therein to initiate fresh action. There is no reference with regard to
following procedure laid down under law, in compliance with the
said order.
36. It is also relevant to note that on the complaint lodged by
one KPV Subbaiah, Police CCS registered a case in
Cr.No.194/2022 making certain serious allegations against the
accused therein. On completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1
to 17 including Mr. Somesh Kumar, the then Chief Secretary,
K.Chandrasekhar, Tahsildar of Rajendra Nagar Mandal at the
relevant point of time. In the said charge sheet, it is stated that the
then Chief Secretary issued memo dated 26.04.2022 without
obtaining any sanction from the Government and without there
being any approval of the Cabinet, impersonation is created and the
nature of the land is changed. Thus, it is available for alienation.
The same is to the benefit of the accused A.1 to A.4 which is
established in view of the conveyance deeds executed by A.17, Sri
Somesh Kumar, the then Chief Secretary. The same is acquired in
contradiction of law which resulted in large scale fraud and
fabrication of the documents. Therefore, A.17 Sri Somesh Kumar,
being a public servant and responsible to safeguard public property
and rights, caused wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful
gain to the accused therein. It is also further stated that a separate
charge sheet will be filed against him as and when sanction is
granted by Government.
37. It is also apt to note that Sri K. Yadaiah, has executed an
agreement of sale dated 21.04.2023 in favour of M/s. A & U lnfra
Park Private Limited. Later, the said K. Yadaiah has executed an
agreement of sale-cum-GPA in respect of land admeasuring 800
square yards in favour of M/s Vessella Greens. The said firm has
also purchased plots from various assignees and encroachers. M/s
Vessella Greens filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.110 of 2024
against the respondents therein to declare the inaction of the
respondents with regard to physical demarcation of the plots and
boundaries of the layout along with the roads by providing all
necessary infrastructural facilities pursuant to the layout approved
by the Director Planning, HMDA vide letter dated 06.02.2023 in
respect of Ac. 26.00 guntas in Sy.Nos. 282 283 and 284 of Budvel
village Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Vide order
dated 04.01.2024, this Court granted interim direction to
respondents 2 to 5 therein to consider the representation of the
petitioner dated 12.12.2023, for survey and demarcation of the
subject land, by issuing notice to petitioner and all other interested
persons, in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said writ
petition is also pending.
38. The aforesaid facts would reveal that respondents have
not followed the due procedure laid down under law. Therefore,
the impugned auction notice dated 10.08.2023 is liable to set aside.
39. Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners
placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in
Binapani Dei (supra) wherein it is held by the Apex Court that it is
one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set up that every
citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the
State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would therefore arise
from super-added. If there is power to decide and determine to the
prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the
exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and
an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity.
That is basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof
transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case.
40. Learned Advocate General places reliance on the
principle laid down by the Apex Court in Gurdip Singh Ubain
and Yadaiah (supra) and the Division Bench judgment of this
Court in Yesaiah died by legal heirs (supra). The facts of the
cases therein are different to the facts of the present cases.
41. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the respondents did not follow the
procedure laid down under law while passing resumption orders
and also issuance of auction notice dated 02.08.2023 proposing to
conduct auction dated 10.08.2023 in respect of subject property.
Therefore, e-auction dated 10.08.2023 conducted by 3rd respondent
in respect of subject property i.e. the land admeasuring Ac.4.19
guntas in Sy.No.288/4 of Budwel Village is arbitrary and illegal.
The same is liable to be set aside.
42. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. E-auction dated
10.08.2023 conducted by 3rd respondent in respect of subject
property of the land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 of
Budwel Village is set aside. Respondent No.4/District Collector is
directed to consider the representation dated 07.12.2020 submitted
by father of the petitioners and pass orders in accordance with law,
by putting the petitioners on notice and affording them an
opportunity. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of
four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
There is no order as to costs.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________________
+JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Date:02.05.2025.
vvr
