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

2023 Supreme(Telangana) 10

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Sarath, J.
K.Ramu S/o Krishnamurthy - Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and three others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4618 of 2008 and 4760 of 2009
Decided On : 15-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri Satha Karni K.
For the Respondent:Sri Harender Pershad, Learned Government Pleader for Advocate-General

Point of Law : If land assigned to landless poor persons under Laoni Rules, there must be condition of non-alienation as per settled law, otherwise it cannot be declared as void transaction.

Headnote:

A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - Agricultural land - Registration - Sale deed - Assigned Land - Petitioner has purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.35 guntas in survey No.131/2, Vettinagulapalli Village, Rajenderanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from its lawful owner Sri Pattela Nageshwara Rao through registered sale deed dated for a valuable consideration - Vendor of petitioner purchased same from its original pattedar Sri Dasari Rajaiah through a registered sale deed dated - At time of purchasing, petitioner got verified revenue records and also verified with the registration authorities i.e., District Registrar, Ranga Reddy before purchasing the same as to whether there is any prohibition of registration either under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 or under any other proceedings or law - Registering authority has informed that land is not an assigned land - Being satisfied in all aspects, petitioner purchased said land from his vendor - Whether there is any prohibition of registration either under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 or under any other proceedings or law - Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that Respondent No.1 has passed the impugned orders even without looking into the survey number of subject land in issue - Respondent No.1 has left all the blanks while answering issue 2 and 3 with respect to file number of assignment. Para 9

Finding of Court :

provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No.9 of 1977) will no application to the alienation of pattas/occupancy rights granted under Laoni Rules or under Revised Assignment Policy issued in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated - Since said Act prohibits tranjsfer of assigned land which is defined under Section 2(1). Laoni Rules as well as rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated deal with two types of assignments, i.e., assignment on payment of market value and assignment to landless poor persons. - In instant case, respondents have not followed Rules, contemplated under Telangana Assigned Land (POT) Act, 1977 and without any notice to petitioners and without any application of mind passed resumption orders prepared by office of respondent No.1, and same were upheld by the appellate authority i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 - In view of same impugned orders of resumption of the subject lands issued by the respondent No.1 in Proc.No.B/6960/2/2004 dated

Result : Both the Writ Petitions are allowed.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri A.Venkatesh for Sri Satha Karni, Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, and Sri Harender Pershad, Learned Special Government Pleader for Advocate-General appearing for the respondents.

2. Since the issue involved in both the petitions is one and the same, both the petitions heard together and being disposed by this common order.

Case of the petitioner in WP No.4618 of 2008

3. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.35 guntas in survey No.131/2, Vettinagulapalli Village, Rajenderanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from its lawful owner Sri Pattela Nageshwara Rao through registered sale deed dated 19.10.2000 for a valuable consideration. The vendor of the petitioner purchased the same from its original pattedar Sri Dasari Rajaiah through a registered sale deed dated 04.02.1993 and 08.06.1993. At the time of purchasing, the petitioner got verified revenue records and also verified with the registration authorities i.e., District Registrar, Ranga Reddy before purchasing the same as to whether there is any prohibition of registration either under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 or under any other proceedings or law. The registering authority has informed that the land is not an assigned land. Being satisfied in all aspects, the petitioner purchased the said land from his vendor. While it being so, the Respondent No.1, without issuing any notice to the petitioner issued resumption proceedings under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 in respect of the suit scheduled land through Proc.No. B/6960/2/2004 dated 21.06.2005 on the ground that land is an assigned land and the same has been transferred to the petitioner in violation of the conditions of assignment.

Case of the petitioner in WP No.4760 of 2009

4. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas in survey No.130/2, Vettinagulapalli Village, Rajenderanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from its lawful owner Sri Pattela Nageswar Rao through a registered sale deed dated 19.10.2000 for a valuable consideration. The vendor of the petitioner purchased the same from its original pattedar Sri Mangalram Laxmaiah, registered sale deed dated 01.11.1992. At the time of purchasing, the petitioner got verified revenue records and also verified with the registration authorities i.e., District Registrar, Ranga Reddy before purchasing the same as to whether there is any prohibition of registration either under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 or under any other proceedings or law. The registering authority has informed that the land is not an assigned land. Being satisfied in all aspects, the petitioner purchased the said land from his vendor. While it being so, the Respondent No.1, without issuing any notice to the petitioner issued resumption proceedings under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 in respect of the suit scheduled land through Proc.No. D/2354/2002 dated 14.10.2005 on the ground that land is an assigned land and the same has been transferred to the petitioner in violation of the conditions of assignment.

5. Learned counsel of the petitioners submits that the petitioners in both the petitions purchased agricultural lands admeasuring from its lawful owner Sri Pattela Nageshwara Rao through registered sale deeds dated 19.10.2000 for a valuable consideration. The vendor of the petitioner in WP No.4618 of 2008 had purchased the same from its original pattedar Sri Dasari Rajaiah through a registered sale deed dated 04.02.1993 and 08.06.1993, and vendor of the petitioner in W.P.No.4760 of 2009 purchased from its original owner Sri Mangalaram Laxmaiah. At the time of purchasing, the petitioners got verified revenue records and also verified with the registration authorities i.e., District Registrar, Ranga Reddy befo

        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