1. Appeal against land resumption order under POT Act, 1977 — Land assignment and limitation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 505
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ., VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J.
The State of Telangana - Appellants
Vs.
Sri Kolan Rukka Reddy and others - Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos.781, 840 And 841 Of 2026
Decided On : 22-09-2026
Important Points
Resumption of land under the POT Act requires the state to prove the land's 'assigned' status and non-alienation conditions with evidence. Such powers, including appellate jurisdiction under Section 4-A, must be exercised within the prescribed statutory limit or a reasonable timeframe.
Subject
Land Law - Land Resumption and Revenue Law
Act Referred
Telangana Assignment Prohibition of Transfers Act : S.2(1), S.4(a)
Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Ac : S.32
ANDHRA PRADESH TELANGANA AREA LAND REVENUE ACT : S.166(b)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Ac : S.32
ANDHRA PRADESH TELANGANA AREA LAND REVENUE ACT : S.166(b)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
Headnote
(A) Telangana Assignment (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - Sections 2(1), 3, 4, and 4-A - Resumption of assigned land - Limitation and Jurisdiction - Power of resumption, even where no specific period of limitation is prescribed for issuance of notices, must be exercised within a reasonable time depending on the facts of the case (Paras 14, 15) - A party cannot approbate and reprobate by invoking an appellate mechanism under Section 4-A and subsequently claiming the proceeding was an independent, time-unbound exercise of power to escape the statutory ninety-day limitation period (Para 13).
(B) Burden of Proof - To validly initiate resumption proceedings under the POT Act, revenue authorities must establish with evidence, and not merely by reference to disputed revenue entries, that the land is “assigned land” within the meaning of Section 2(1) and that the assignment carries a condition of non-alienation (Para 17) - An unapproved departmental proposal cannot substitute a duly sanctioned assignment carrying a condition of non-alienation (Para 17).
Facts of the case:
Land allegedly allotted under the Laoni Rules, 1950, was the subject of resumption proceedings. A Tahsildar had previously withdrawn a resumption notice in 2016, concluding that the land carried absolute title with a right of alienation. Over four years later, the Revenue Divisional Officer, treating a departmental letter as an appeal, set aside the Tahsildar's order and directed resumption under the POT Act. The writ court set aside this order on the grounds of an unexplained delay of 1,460 days and the failure of the state to prove the land was "assigned land" subject to non-alienation.
Findings of Court:
The order directing resumption was without jurisdiction as it was passed beyond the period prescribed under Section 4-A of the POT Act and after an unreasonable, unexplained delay of nearly sixty years from the date of assignment. Furthermore, the state failed to discharge the burden of proving the land's status as assigned land subject to non-alienation, as the assignment deed was not traceable.
Issues: (i) Whether the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is vitiated for want of jurisdiction on the ground of delay; (ii) Whether the state established that the subject land is “assigned land” within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the POT Act, 1977, subject to a condition of non-alienation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statutory appellate powers under Section 4-A are bound by the ninety-day limitation period and that any exercise of resumption power must occur within a reasonable timeframe. Additionally, the burden of proving the "assigned" status and non-alienation condition lies squarely on the state, which cannot be satisfied by unapproved proposals or missing documentation.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
(B) Burden of Proof - To validly initiate resumption proceedings under the POT Act, revenue authorities must establish with evidence, and not merely by reference to disputed revenue entries, that the land is “assigned land” within the meaning of Section 2(1) and that the assignment carries a condition of non-alienation (Para 17) - An unapproved departmental proposal cannot substitute a duly sanctioned assignment carrying a condition of non-alienation (Para 17).
Facts of the case:
Land allegedly allotted under the Laoni Rules, 1950, was the subject of resumption proceedings. A Tahsildar had previously withdrawn a resumption notice in 2016, concluding that the land carried absolute title with a right of alienation. Over four years later, the Revenue Divisional Officer, treating a departmental letter as an appeal, set aside the Tahsildar's order and directed resumption under the POT Act. The writ court set aside this order on the grounds of an unexplained delay of 1,460 days and the failure of the state to prove the land was "assigned land" subject to non-alienation.
Findings of Court:
The order directing resumption was without jurisdiction as it was passed beyond the period prescribed under Section 4-A of the POT Act and after an unreasonable, unexplained delay of nearly sixty years from the date of assignment. Furthermore, the state failed to discharge the burden of proving the land's status as assigned land subject to non-alienation, as the assignment deed was not traceable.
Issues: (i) Whether the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is vitiated for want of jurisdiction on the ground of delay; (ii) Whether the state established that the subject land is “assigned land” within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the POT Act, 1977, subject to a condition of non-alienation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statutory appellate powers under Section 4-A are bound by the ninety-day limitation period and that any exercise of resumption power must occur within a reasonable timeframe. Additionally, the burden of proving the "assigned" status and non-alienation condition lies squarely on the state, which cannot be satisfied by unapproved proposals or missing documentation.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
- revenue law
- limitation
- practice and procedure
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether land was assigned with non-alienation condition, and whether resumption was time-barred. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. Resumption proceeding was unreasonably delayed and appellants failed to prove land was assigned with non-alienation condition. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 )
4. Statutory silence on limitation does not permit unreasonable delay; power must be exercised within a reasonable time. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. Appeals dismissed — writ court order setting aside resumption order and notices confirmed. (Para 24 )
6. Can a party approbate and reprobate in legal proceedings?
No, a party cannot take one position before an authority and an inconsistent position before an appellate forum. (Para 13 )
7. Does silence on limitation mean power can be exercised at any time?
No, power must be exercised within a reasonable time; silence does not grant unlimited time. (Para 14 , 15 )
8. What must revenue authorities establish before initiating resumption under the POT Act?
They must prove with evidence that the land is assigned land subject to a condition of non-alienation. (Para 17 , 18 )
9. What is the appellate limitation period under the POT Act?
Section 4-A prescribes a period of ninety days for preferring an appeal against an order of the Tahsildar. (Para 9 , 16 )
ORDER:
Since the parties, the facts, and the questions of law arising in these three intra-court appeals are common, all three being directed against a common order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the writ court in W.P.Nos.10920, 11110 and 11897 of 2020, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. W.A.No.781 of 2026, arising out of W.P.No.11897 of 2020, which was itself treated as the lead matter before the writ court, is treated as the lead appeal, and the facts narrated therein, being common to the connected appeals, are set out below.
2. Heard Mr. Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, for the appellants; and Mr. Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr. Akhil Munnuri, learned counsel, for the respondents. Perused the record.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The land in dispute is an extent of Ac.13.14 guntas comprised in Sy.No.325 of Nizampet Village, Bachupally Mandal (formerly Quthbullapur Mandal), Medchal-Malkajgiri District (formerly Ranga Reddy District). Respondent No.1 and the fathers/grandfather of respondent Nos.2 to 10 claim to have been allotted the land under the Laoni Rules, 1950, on payment of Rs.201.72 each towards upset value, to an extent of Ac.4.18 guntas apiece; that pahanies, pattadar pass books and title deeds came to be issued to them under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 ; and that, on the demise of the original allottees, the land devolved on respondent Nos.2 to 10, whose names were mutated as pattadars in the revenue records, including through Faisal Patti of 1960.
4. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 and one K. Chandra Reddy sold a part of the land, vide registered sale deed dated 22.03.1996, to third parties, who in turn sold an extent of Ac.2.00 to Vignan Vidyalaya Limited for educational use, and that structures were raised on the land by legal heirs of the other allottees during 1990. In October, 2015, the appellant No.4 (Tahsildar) initiated steps to resume the land and issued Form-I notice dated 23.11.2015. Being, aggrieved by the aforesaid notice, the respondents herein filed W.P.No.39984 of 2015, which was disposed of on 09.12.2015 with a direction to the Tahsildar to consider their reply and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.In compliance, the Tahsildar passed order dated 07.01.2016 holding that the respondents were pattadars in possession of the land inherited from their fore-fathers, that the assignment was under the Laoni Rules, 1950, which confers absolute title with a right of alienation, that the Telangana Assignment (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (“the POT Act”) had no application, and accordingly withdrew the Form-I notice.
5. More than four years later, the appellant No.4 addressed a letter dated 29.01.2020 to the appellant No.3 (Revenue Divisional Officer), requesting that the matter be “taken up as an appeal” under the POT Act, reviewed afresh, and appropriate orders passed. Acting on that letter, and without any application to condone the delay of 1,460 days in preferring such an appeal, the appellant No.3 passed the impugned order dated 09.07.2020, setting aside the Tahsildar's order dated 07.01.2016 and directing resumption of the land under the POT Act. Consequential Form-I and Form-II notices, both dated 10.07.2020, followed.
6. The respondents carried the matter in W.P.Nos.11897, 11110 and 10920 of 2020, assailing, respectively, the order dated 09.07.2020, and the Form-II and Form-I notices dated 10.07.2020, essentially on the grounds that (i) the appellants had failed to establish that the land was “assigned land” within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the POT Act, subject to a condition of non-alienation; and (ii) the appellant No.3 lacked jurisdiction to entertain, as an appeal under Section 4 -A of the POT Act, a challenge preferred 1,460 days after the order impugned before it, and could not, in any event, resume the land nearly
