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

2018 Supreme(AP) 171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
C. Suresh Rayudu - Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.23508 OF 2007
Decided On : 20-04-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri B.Vijayasen Reddy
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Revenue

Headnote:Andhra Pradesh assigned lands prohibition of transfer act 1977 section 3, 4 - Writ petition – summary evection - Subject matter is the land measuring 1.00 guntas– Mr Mansb Ali Khan what is the original possessor of the land, in 1995 petitioner purchased the property via sale deed from Mr Khan, got property registered and was enjoying peaceful possession of the property – in 2005 third respondent issued a notice under Andhra Pradesh assigned land act 1977 directing petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be evicted on the ground that the petitioner is in contravention of the act – petitioner stated that he purchased the land from Mr Khan, later his name was entered into the Pattadaar– Petitioner also stated that the act of 1977 only applies to the property assigned to landless poor and not to ex-servicemen - third respondent ordered that the petitioner has not filed documents, evidence is to show that the land was previously owned by an ex-servicemen – further ordered the mandal revenue inspector to take immediate possession of the property under the act of 1977 – petitioner filed appeal before the second respondent, appeal was dismissed due to insufficient evidence is in support of petitioner – petitioner approached first respondent, the respondent confirmed the order of the appellate authority – writ petition filed - held, the burden of proof lies on third respondent who is the custodian of the records, it is his responsibility to prove that the vendor of the petitioner has violated the provisions of law, in the absence of any records petitioner is the bona fide purchaser – the writ petition is allowed - order of third respondent, first respondent are set aside.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the order passed in proceedings No.E1/2177/2007 dated 17-07-2007 by the 1st respondent/Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the order in proceedings No.D/1797/2006 dated 22-01-2007 passed by the 2nd respondent/Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Attapur, Rajender Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the order passed in proceedings No.B/543/2005 dated 10-11-2005 by the 3rd respondent/Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. The facts concise in the case, which led to prefer the writ petition, assailing the above orders are that the land, which is the subject matter herein is admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas, out of a total extent of Ac.3.31 guntas, situated in Sy.No.31, Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is bounded by: North: Part of Sy.No.31, South: Part of Sy.No.31, East: Village of Kanammet Jagir and West: Land in Sy.Nos.30 and 32.

It was originally assigned to Mr.Mansab Ali Khan, through whom, the petitioner purchased the same vide registered sale deed document No.6715/1995, dated 26.05.1995, registered in the office of the Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. Since then, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

3. While the matter stood thus, a notice in Form No.1, No.B/543/05, dated 30-05-2005 was issued by the third respondent invoking the powers under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short the Act, 1977), directing the petitioner to show cause within (15) days of receipt of the notice as to why the petitioner should not be summarily evicted from the said land on the ground that the petitioner was found to have assigned lands specified in the schedule and the nature of occupation is by way of purchase and thus it is contravention of the Act, 1977.

4. To the said notice, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 18-07-2005, stating that the land purchased was from Mr.Mansab Ali Khan, Senior Hawaldar, who is a Military Personnel and he (ex-serviceman) was granted patta in Form No.9 bearing No.E1/11993/96, dated 08-04-1961 to an extent of Ac.3.31 guntas. A Supplementary Sethwar was issued in his name and the same was implemented in the year 1992-93, faisal Patti as Bandobust Kami and Bandobust Izafa, later his name was entered in the pahani of 1993-94 as pattedar. The petitioner further explained that prohibition of transfers of assigned lands Act and Rules 1977 applies to the lands assigned to the landless poor, but not to the lands assigned to the ex-servicemen as per the clarification issued in Government Memo No.2006/B1/80.2 (Rev.) dated 30.09.1980. Thus, there is no contravention of Section 3(2) of the Act, 1977 and while enclosing the Xerox copy of the documents, the petitioner requested to withdraw the action in pursuance of the notice of the third respondent dated 30-05-2005.

5. The third respondent without appreciating the facts, legal position and without going through the records, passed order No.B/543/2005, dated 10-11-2005, stating that on verification of the revenue records i.e., Kasra for the year 1954-55 and other records, the land in Sy.No.31 in an extent of Ac.3.31 guntas of Kondapur village is classified as Government land and Bandhobasth Izafa was granted to Mr. Mansab Ali Khan (vendor of the petitioner) through faisal patti for the year 1992-93, basing on the supplementary sethwar issued by the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records in File No.G8/2566/03. It was also held that the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to show that the land is assigned to the ex-servicemen, but not to the landless poor and on verification of the office records, no evidence materialized to show that the land is assigned to ex-servicemen. In view of the above, the third respondent, vested wit





























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