IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
R.S. Chauhan, B. Vijaysen Reddy, JJ.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
Chavali Anilaja and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos. 1509 and 1510 of 2017
Decided On : 30-12-2020
Assigned Lands - Resumption Orders - Andhra Pradesh Rights in the Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 - Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in the Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, G.O.Ms. No. 1406 dated 25.07.1958 - The resumption order passed without considering the assignment patta and conditions therein is illegal and void. The resumption orders, having been passed thirty-five years from the date of first set of transactions in the year 1966, are arbitrary. The proceedings impugned is illegal and arbitrary.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners purchased lands which were originally assigned by the Government to certain individuals. The Government initiated resumption proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The petitioners challenged the resumption orders, claiming that they were not served with any notice before the orders were passed.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, stating that no notice was issued to the petitioners before resumption orders were passed. The resumption was not legally permissible as the procedure under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 was not followed. The resumption orders were deemed arbitrary and illegal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the resumption orders passed by the Government under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 were legally permissible and whether the petitioners were served with proper notice before the orders were passed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the resumption orders were illegal and void as they were passed without considering the assignment patta and conditions therein. The court also emphasized that the proceedings were arbitrary and unsustainable due to the lack of proper notice to the original purchasers of the assigned lands.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed, affirming the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in favor of the petitioners. The resumption orders were deemed illegal and arbitrary.
JUDGMENT :
B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of the common order dated 01.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP. No. 2649 of 2010 and W.P. No. 21088 of 2012.
2. W.P. No. 2649 of 21010 was filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 20.11.2009 in case No. D1/7791/2008 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. W.P. No. 21088 of 2012 was filed challenging order of resumption dated 08.02.2002 in proceedings No. B/1250/2001 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petitions.
4. The brief facts of the case pleaded by the petitioners are as under:
(b) The petitioners claimed that the land in the above survey number originally belonged to one Abdul Hussaini and one Mohd. Khaja. Their names were recorded in pahanies for the year 1966. There were multiple transactions and the title devolved from the original vendors to various persons under different registered sale deeds right from 1965. The petitioner purchased the lands from one B. Krishna Sagar, S/o. Dharamarao, who was survived by his sons B. Vidyasagar, B. Krishna Sagar and B. Ramsagar. The vendors of the petitioners have got title to the lands by virtue of entries in pahanies. From the year 1966-67, the petitioners have been requesting the authorities to enter their names in the revenue records and to issue the pattadar passbooks. Meanwhile, the petitioners found suspicious discrepancies in the revenue records; the Government started claiming rights over the lands in the year 2001.
(c) Aggrieved by the action of the Government, the petitioners preferred a revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in the Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, before the Joint Collector for correction of entries in the revenue records from 2001 to 2007. The Joint Collector dismissed the revision petition under impugned order dated 20.11.2009 by recording that the lands are classified as "Kharij Khata" or "Laoni Patta".
(d) However, the petitioners have pleaded that the impugned order of the Joint Collector is contrary to the proceedings conducted by the Special Deputy Collector (LA-General), the land acquisition authority, who issued gazette notification dated 11.12.1986 published in the Deccan Chronicle English daily newspaper wherein part of the lands of the vendors of the petitioners were acquired. In fact, they have been paid a compensation vide cheque No. 047773 dated 17.01.1989. The said lands were shown as patta lands in the year 1954 reflecting the name of the original owner, Abdul Hussaini. The vendors of the petitioners were in continuous possession of the land.
5. In the counter filed by the respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 2469 of 2010, it is stated that:
Dasari Narayana Rao V. Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, RR District
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.