Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1135
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J.
Nimma Saritha – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No.44252 of 2017
Decided On : 03-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pasham Ravindra Reddy
For the Respondent: GP For Assignment
Assignment of government land requires adherence to procedural fairness and compensation must be provided for any resumption after significant time, affirming the rights of land assignees.
Headnote:(A) Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958 - Resumption of land - Action against petitioner for alleged violation of assignment conditions was challenged - Resumption after 41 years deemed arbitrary and illegal as it violates principles of due process. (Paras 1, 14)
(B) Social welfare legislation - Power to resume assigned lands must be exercised within a reasonable time frame and clear grounds must be stated. (Paras 10, 12)
(C) Compensation - Assignees entitled to compensation equivalent to market value when government resumes assigned land. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order for the resumption of assigned agricultural land that had been in her family's possession since 1975 after claiming it was kept fallow, while the petitioner stated she had been cultivating the land.
Findings of Court:
The impugned orders were set aside, and the respondents were directed to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Issues: The court addressed whether the government had the authority to resume land after such a long period and the applicable legal standards for land resumption.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the power to resume land cannot be extended beyond a reasonable period, reaffirming the right to compensation for land assignees.
Result: Writ petition allowed, impugned orders set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the legal issue regarding land assignment. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding cultivation and compliance with assignment conditions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court analysis on the timeline of respondent actions. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. entitlement to compensation for resumption of assigned land. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's stance on reasonable time for resumption after land assignment. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. final ruling and direction to respondents for land acquisition. (Para 14) |
| 7. closure of miscellaneous petitions. (Para 15) |
ORDER :
K. SARATH, J.
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.4 in passing the order in Proc.B/8024/16, dated 19.12.2016 as confirmed by the respondent Nos.3 and 2 in Appeal No.D2/124/2017, dated 06.05.2017 and Revision Case No.F2/1901/2017, dated 25.11.2017 respectively, directing to resume the assigned agricultural land of the petitioner admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.671 (671/51) situated at Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District as arbitrary and illegal and requested to set aside the impugned orders.
2. Heard Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohd. Habeebuddin, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government has assigned the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.671 situated at Suryapet in favour of the maternal grandfather of petitioner namely late Chitamalla Venkataiah @ Venkaiah, who has one son by name Papaiah and daughter Poolamma. After his demise, the petitioner being the daughter of Poolamma and said Papaiah had succeeded Ac.1-00 each and they have been cultivating the land by raising crops like paddy, reed gram and jowar etc. The respondents have issued patta certificate No.G/1582/2001 dated .06.2001 in favour of the mother of petitioner, her name was mutated in the revenue records, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in her favour and since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the said land by cultivating the same. While it being so, after a lapse of 41 years of assignment, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar issued Form-II notice dated 31.10.2016 stating that the petitioner was found to be the transferee of the assigned lands in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,1977 and kept the land fallow. The petitioner gave reply on 25.11.2016 along with the relevant documents. The respondent No.4 without considering the said documents has passed the impugned order in Proc.No.B/8024/16 dated 19.12.2016 for resumption of the assigned agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.671 (671/51) situated at Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner kept the land fallow in violation of the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was dismissed vide Appeal No.D2/124/2017 dated 06.05.2017, against which the petitioner filed revision and the same was also dismissed in Revision Case No.F2/1901/2017 dated 25.11.2017.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner cultivated the subject land for the last 19 years, as such the land cannot be resumed on the vague allegation that the land kept fallow. The impugned orders were passed without considering the procedure of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act, 1977), which is a social welfare legislation.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the pahanies for the years 1997-98 to 2013- 14, to which the respondents are referring, cannot be taken into consideration since the assignment was done in the year 1975, much p
