Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Nagavaram Janaki Rama Rao – Petitioner
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda Division and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1126 of 2009
Decided On : 16-08-2023
Writ Petition - Land Dispute - A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - Section 4(3) - Section 2(1) - Section 3 - Section 4(1) - Section 4-A - Section 18 of Ceiling Surplus Act, 1973 - G.O.Ms. No. 1406 dated 25-7-1958 - G.O.Ms. No. 1142, dated 18-6-1954 - Laoni Rules of 1950 - Proceedings No. B/337/2007 - File No. 114/2007 - Proceedings No. 261/A2/56-57 - Writ Petition allowed, impugned orders set aside
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's late father owned land which was mutated in the petitioner's name. The petitioner was in possession of a portion of the land, which was alleged to be government land. The authorities initiated proceedings to restrain the petitioner from enjoying the property, leading to the impugned orders for eviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities failed to establish that the land was assigned with a condition of non-alienation, as required by the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The court also noted that the authorities did not consider crucial issues such as the date of assignment and the specific terms and conditions of the deed of assignment.
Issues: The key issues were whether the land was assigned with a condition of non-alienation, as required by the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and whether the authorities had jurisdiction to proceed under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authorities must first establish that the land is assigned with a condition prohibiting alienation before initiating proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The court also emphasized the importance of considering jurisdictional facts before passing orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside due to the authorities' failure to establish that the land was assigned with a condition of non-alienation and their failure to consider crucial jurisdictional facts.
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned G.P. for Assignment appearing on behalf of Respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records connected with the order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Proc. No. B/337/2007 dated 20.09.2007 as confirmed by the 1st Respondent in file No. 114/2007 dated 20.01.2009 and quash the same as illegal and void.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief, is as follows:
(b) Out of Acs. 13.12 gts of land in Sy. No. 478, (herein referred to as Subject Property) part of it was given to other sharers in exchange for other lands and the petitioner was in possession of Acs. 8.28 gts of land in the Sy. No. 478/1 and the same is clear through the pahanies (2003-04) and Pattadar Pass Book issued to the petitioner.
(c) Further out of this area of Acs. 8.28 gts, an area of Acs. 4.28 gts. has either been alienated or donated to various persons and religious institutions. Thus, the remaining Acs. 4.00 gts. of land is in the possession of the petitioner.
(d) The villagers complained to the 1st Respondent that the land in possession of the petitioner in Sy. No. 478 is a government land and that the petitioner has been illegally plotting and selling the same to others. Therefore 1st Respondent, vide endorsement dated 26.02.2007 directed the office of the 2nd Respondent to initiate necessary proceedings to restrain the petitioner from enjoying the property.
(e) On 28.02.2007, notice was issued to the petitioner by the 2nd Respondent, vide file No. B/337/2007 stating the petitioner as illegal occupant and of having purchased the said property illegally. In reply the petitioner stated that he is the legal occupant and the subject property was bought for valid monetary consideration.
(f) On 22.03.2007, a memo was issued to the petitioner by the 2nd Respondent, seeking information with respect to the nature of allotment of the property to petitioner and also stated that the petitioner holds more than the ceiling limit and hence the petitioner has to file for ceiling declaration.
(g) Through letter dated 04.04.2007, the 2nd Respondent admitted that an area Acs. 13.12 gts has been allotted to the petitioner’s father and that after his death, the land has been mutated in the name of the petitioner.
(h) The 1st Respondent through vide file No. E1/1141/07 dated 24.05.2007 observed that when the land has been assigned under Laoni Rules of 1950, there is no prohibition for the appellant to sell the land and this office further observed that when land is assigned on market value, there is no prohibition for sale.
(i) Yet again, the 2nd Respondent, issued a fresh show cause memo MP/N/337/2007 dated 20.08.2008 with same allegations as made previously. In turn, the petitioner requested for notice of hearing before making any enquiry into the matter or passing a final order. But, without any enquiry the 2nd Respondent has passed the impugned order dated 20.09.2008 in Proc. No B/337/2007, directing the petitioner to evict the said property.
(j) Aggrieved by the orders of the 2nd Respondent, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the 1st Respondent. During pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner through applications dated 02.07.2007 and 18.07.2008, requested the 2nd Respondent to furnish the copies of Faisal patties from the years 1953-57 pertaining to the subject property. However, the same was not provided.
(k) On 11.10.2007, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner, to direct Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to furnish the above-mentioned notice & letter copies but the petitioner was directed to approach the
The main legal point established in the judgment is that authorities must establish that land is assigned with a condition prohibiting alienation before initiating proceedings under the A.P. Assigned....
Point of law : Registered sale transaction in respect of the subject land on different occasions of petitioner’s predecessors in title established that the subject land was treated as free hold land.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of stating the nature of assignment and the conditions of non-alienation while initiating proceedings under the Andhra Prad....
The absence of a non-alienation clause in the original land assignment means it cannot be classified as assigned land under the A.P. Assigned Lands Act, allowing for its registration.
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.
Point of Law : Wherever there is no specific evidence that assignments of lands were made subsequent to the issuance of G.O.Ms., benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the parties who inten....
The court established that adherence to procedural requirements in eviction proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Land Prohibition of Transfers Act is essential for the validity of such orders.
Assigned Land - Resumption proceedings maintainable - Act contemplates taking action at any point of time soon after it comes to the knowledge of the officials about the contravention of the provisio....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
