SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(AP) 53

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : R.RAMANUJAM
Rambagh Satyanarayana - Appellant
Versus
Joint Collector, R.R.Dist, Hyderabad - Respondent
W.P.No.20900/97
Decided On : 01-31-00
Advocates Appeared :
Mr.U.S.R. Murthy, Mr.C.V. Mohan Reddy

Headnote:APASSIGNED LANDS (PROHI-BITION OF TRANSFERS) ACT, 1977 - Secs2(1), 3 & 4 - HYDERABAD LAND REVENUE ACT, Sec58-A - LIMITATION ACT, Sec27 - “Assigned land” - Defined - Unless assignment is subject to condition of non-alienation, land that is assigned can not be treated as assigned land - Assignees sold assigned lands to an Industrial Estate after obtaining permission from District Collector - Assignees filing petition after lapse of 29 years seeking restoration of possession of lands - Pursuant to directions of High Court in writ petition filed by assignees Joint Collector after conducting enquiry rejected the claim holding that the lands were already sold duly following procedure - No proof to show that original assignment was subject to condition of non-alienation - In the absence of proof that land is assigned land within the definition of the Act, question of restoration u/S4 does not arise - Undisputedly in the present case petitioners/assignees lost possession of lands 29 years back and their right to that property has extinguished according to Sec27 of Indian Limitation Act - Order of Joint Collector in rejecting the claim of the petitioners - Justified

R. RAMANUJAM, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are 10 in number, filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 1st respondent herein, made on 22-1-1997 in case No. DS 75347/94.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are residents of petbasheerbad village, Quthbullahpur mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioners 6, 7 and 10 are the original assignees and petitioners 1 to 5, 8 and 9 are the legal heirs of some other original assignees. Their case is that they, along with another 35 persons of their village, who are landless poor persons, were assigned agricultural land to the extent of Ac. 3. 23 guntas each in Survey no. 25/1 of Petbasheerbad village, quthbullapur Mandal, in the year 1955 by the then Tahsildar, Medchal taluk and the names of the assignees were shown as pattadars and possessors in the Pahani till the year 1983-84. Thereafter their names were deleted and the names of some other people were entered in the revenue records. Having realized the said fact, the petitioners filed an application before the District collector, Rangareddy District, on 15-3-1994 requesting him to take action under A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) act, 1977 (for short the Act ) and to restore the land to them. When there was no response to that request, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 11113/94. It appears that the said writ petition was disposed of on 26-3-1994 directing the Joint Collector, 1st respondent herein, to enquire into the matter. Pursuant to the said direction, the 1st respondent conducted an enquiry, gave full opportunity to the petitioners and respondents 6 to 11 herein, who were represented by their Advocates, and on elaborate consideration of all the aspects found that the land admeasuring Ac. 242. 27 guntas in Survey No. 25 of Petbasheerbad village was classified as "kancha". Out of which, an extent of Ac. 160. 35 guntas was assigned to 45 individuals at Ac. 3. 23 guntas each by the then Tahsildar, Medchal taluk in pursuance of the Government Order nos. 9384 and 9385, dated 1-12-1954, pattas were also granted to them and necessary entries were made in the revenue records in the year 1960. Subsequently, Sri Burre mallaiah and 24 others filed a petition before the Collector, Hyderabad District, on 28-10-1965 seeking permission to sell the land assigned to them in Survey No. 25/1 of petbasheerabad village, Medchal taluk in favour of Co-operative Industrial Estate, hyderabad (for short the Estate ). The collector granted permission under section 58-A of the Hyderabad Land revenue Act to the assignees to sell the assigned land in favour of the Estate. Thereafter, the assignees sold the assigned land to the Estate under a registered document dated 1142-1965. Out of the land purchased by the Estate, an extent of about ac. 38. 00 guntas was allotted by the Estate to respondents 6 to 11 herein by means of registered allotment deeds dated 3-8-79 and 6-8-79. Thereafter necessary entries were made in Jamabandi during the year 1984. Having thus found the correct facts relating to the case, the 1st respondent rejected the petitioners request holding thus:-"the petitioners as far back as in the year 1965 obtained permission from the Collector to sell the suit lands and they have already sold the said land. Now, after a gap of twenty-nine (29) years the petitioners are seeking restoration of possession of the lands which were already sold duly following the procedure. The petitioners are not entitled to any claim over the suit lands as they had already relinquished their rights long back by following due procedure. They are, therefore, not entitled to raise this issue at this distant point of time and create avoidable and fruitless litigation. The claim of the petitioner is accordingly rejected. "

( 3 ) CHALLENGING the aforementioned order, Counsel for the petitioners, Sri U. S. R. Murthy, submits that: (a) the 1st respondent has committed a grave error in rejecting the request of the petiti






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top