IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. Ramasubramanian and J. Uma Devi, JJ.
Lanka Mohan and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 394 of 2009
Decided On : 23-03-2017
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli - Section 166B(1) - Petition filed by the appellants questioning the correctness of the orders cancelling the Pattas issued to them way back in the year 1961. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment for the State of Telangana appearing for the respondents - Case on hand has a chequered history - Government issued an order in G.O. Ms. Revenue revising its policy with regard to assignment of certain lands in the District Headquarters and Municipal towns - Order it was mandated that in all District Headquarters Towns and also in Municipal towns, within a belt of 1 mile from the limits of such towns, no Government vacant land with the descriptions given in the Government Order should be disposed of by assignment, along with lease exceeding 5 years to private individuals - Government Order made it clear that the restrictions indicated in paragraph 2 may be relaxed in favour of landless poor persons including harijans for the purpose of assignments to them for house sites purposes - Ground on which the pattas were sought to be cancelled was that as per assignment of government land within a radius of 1 mile from the limits of such towns was prohibited – Held, Government Pleader that as per the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Land Revenue and this Court, the possession of the land had been taken over way back in and that it may not be fair to gift the appellants with valuable lands almost - Despite all the legal points in favour of the appellants this argument of the leaned Government Pleader troubled our conscience we summoned the records from the office of the respondents to find out if in fact, possession of the lands had been resumed - But to our shock we found that at all points of time the appellants have had the benefit of interim stay orders, both from this Court as well as from the Revenue Authorities themselves - Records produced by the Government Pleader do not show how possession of the land was taken - On the contrary there was a memo issued by the Collector to the Mandal Revenue Officer to make an inspection of the land and submit a report as to whether the appellants continued to be in possession - Mandal Revenue Officer called for a report from the Village Administrative Officer who confirmed by his memo that the appellants were in possession records belie the claim that the possession had been resumed by the Government - Mandal Revenue Officer to take possession of the lands into Government custody. If the respondents had already taken possession in itself the question of the revenue authorities themselves granting a stay and the revenue authorities themselves confirming the continuance of possession of the appellants even in the year would not have arisen - Respondents appear to have simply led the learned single Judge to believe that possession had already been taken over in 1979, which lead to the learned Judge dismissing the writ petition - Appeal deserves to be allowed.
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellants herein, questioning the correctness of the orders cancelling the Pattas issued to them way back in the year 1961. We have heard Mr. Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment for the State of Telangana appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 herein.
2. The case on hand has a chequered history, without bringing on record which, the questions raised in the appeal cannot be answered. Therefore, let us now have a look at the facts out of which the present proceedings arise:
"(a) by the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 12-05-1961, the agricultural lands of an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas was assigned to the forefathers of each of the appellants herein in Survey Nos. 21/1, 21/36, 21/37 and 21/38 of Dasnapur village, Adilabad Mandal and District;
(b) based upon the assignment made on 12-05-1961, certificates of patta were also issued on 19-09-1961, as per the revised assignment policy under G.O. Ms. No. 1406 of 1958;
(c) In the meantime, the Government issued an order in G.O. Ms. No. 1122 Revenue dated 29-06-1961, revising its policy with regard to assignment of certain lands in the District Headquarters and Municipal towns. Under Para 2 (i) of the said Government Order, it was mandated that in all District Headquarters, Towns and also in Municipal towns, within a belt of 1 mile from the limits of such towns, no Government vacant land with the descriptions given in the Government Order should be disposed of by assignment, along with lease exceeding 5 years to private individuals.; But paragraph 3 of the said Government Order made it clear that the restrictions indicated in paragraph 2 may be relaxed in favour of landless poor persons including harijans, for the purpose of assignments to them for house sites purposes only;
(d) After more than 10 years of the said assignment, the District Revenue Officer, Adilabad issued a show cause notice dated 05-01-1972 calling upon the appellants as well as a few others to show cause as to why the pattas granted by the Tahsildar should not be cancelled. The ground on which the pattas were sought to be cancelled was that as per G.O. Ms. No. 1122, dated 29-06-1961, assignment of government land within a radius of 1 mile from the limits of such towns was prohibited.
(e) Thereafter, the District Revenue Officer, describing himself as in Charge Collector passed an order on 11-06-1975 (after more than 3 years of the show cause notice), cancelling the assignment, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 166B(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.
(f) It appears that as against the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal to the District Collector. During the pendency of the appeal, there was an attempt to dispossess the appellants, but the same was prevented by the Mandal Revenue Officer by his proceedings dated 29-09-1986.
(g) Thereafter, the appellants filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 13501 of 1987 on the file of this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge by an order dated 19-01-1990, directing the District Collector to treat the representations made by the appellants as an appeal and dispose of the same within a period of 2 months. Since an interim stay of dispossession had been granted at the time of ordering notice in the writ petition, the said stay was also directed to be continued, when the writ petition was disposed of on 19-01-1990.
(h) Pursuant to the said order, the Joint Collector, Adilabad took up the representation as an appeal and rejected the same by an order dated 04-09-1991 both on the ground that the assignment was in violation of G.O. Ms. No. 1122, dated 29-06-1991 and on the ground that the possession of the lands have already been taken aver by the Government and entries altered in the revenue
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.