The court found that misconceptions regarding land assignment and market value collection led to the erroneous judgment, necessitating a remand for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. This bunch of cases belong to three categories, but all carry the same question(s) for resolution. The first batch of appeals viz. Civil Appeal Nos.1919-1922 of 2016 are directed against the common judgment and order dated 02.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in quartet Writ Petitions viz., WP Nos. 13227/2005, 13228/2005, 13229/2005 and 13230/2005. The second batch of appeals viz., Civil Appeal Nos.1923-1930 of 2016, except Civil Appeal No.1929 of 2016 which was de-tagged as per order dated 31.07.2024 are directed against the judgments and orders in different Writ Petitions carrying the same questions arising out of the identical factual situations and allowed in terms of the common judgment and order dated 02.09.2008, which is under challenge in the first batch of Civil Appeals. The third batch contains two Special Leave Petitions viz., Nos.19725-19726 of 2021, again carrying the same questions arising out of identical factual situations and allowed in terms of the common judgment and order dated 02.09.2008, which is under challenge in the first batch of Civil Appeals. In such circumstances, leave is granted in the said Special Leave Petitions, as well.

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh and/or its officers are the appellants in all the captioned appeals. Since we have noted that the second and third batch of appeals carry challenge against the judgments rendered relying on the common judgment dated 02.09.2008, which is under challenge in the first batch of appeals, we will proceed to consider the first batch of appeals and needless to say that the fate of the other appeals would depend upon the outcome of such consideration.

3. Writ Petition Nos.13227-13230 of 2005 were filed challenging the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District in the State of Andhra Pradesh in Proceeding No.D/1229/2003 dated 30.04.2005 and further proceedings in appeals against the same, of the Deputy Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in Proceeding No.B/1139/1998 dated 15.02.2003. As per the order dated 15.02.2003, finding evidence established against the assignees/purchasers, in respect of land comprised in Survey No.37 and 38/1 situated at Khanamet village classified as Kharij Khatta Sarkari, to the effect that they had contravened the provision under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the AP AL (POT) Act’), the request of the purchasers/assignees including the party respondents in the appeals, to drop proceedings based on the notices issued to them under the said Act and to allow them to transfer subject lands, were rejected. Consequently, it was ordered thereunder to resume the lands involved thereunder under the custody of the Government immediately from the purchasers/possessors after duly evicting them according to the provisions of the AP AL (PoT) Act).

4. As per proceedings dated 30.04.2005, pursuant to order dated 28.04.2003 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a batch of Writ Petitions, the appeals filed against the aforesaid order dated 15.02.2003 were considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Upon consideration, those appeals were dismissed finding no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order of the Deputy Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 15.02.2003.

5. In the aforesaid quartet Writ Petitions and connected matters, after assimilating the contentions, based on various Government Orders and the provisions under the relevant enactment(s), the High Court formulated the points for consideration as under: -

“Whether lands which were granted Patta under Laoni Rules, 1950 (for short, “the Laoni Rules”) can be resumed under the provisions of the Act No. 9 of 1977 treating them as assigned lands”.

6. While challenging the aforesaid orders, evidently, the Writ Petitioners, who purchase