Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 117
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD *****
WRIT PETITION NO.4618 of 2008 Between:
K.Ramu S/o Krishnamurthy (cid:133)Petitioner AND The Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and three others (cid:133)Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.4760 of 2009 Between:
K.Jyothi W/o K.Ramu (cid:133)Petitioner AND
1. The Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and three others (cid:133)Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 15.03.2023 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON(cid:146)BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment : Yes/No may be marked to Law Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship : Yes/No wish to see the fair copy of judgment _____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH : :2::
THE HON(cid:146)BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH +WRIT PETITION NO.4618 of 2008 %Dated 15.03.2023 # K.Ramu S/o Sri Krishna Murthy (cid:133)Petitioner AND $ 1. The Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (cid:133)Respondents +WRIT PETITION NO.4760 of 2009 %Dated 15.03.2023 # K.Jyothi W/o K.Ramu (cid:133)Petitioner AND $ 1. The Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (cid:133)Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Satha Karni K.
^ Counsel for Respondent: Sri Harender Pershad, Learned Government Pleader for Advocate-General, < GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1. 2014 SCC Online, AP 431: (2014) 2 ALT 1
2. 2018 SCC Online Hyd 264: (2018) 3 ALT 722
3. 2022 (6) ALT 235 (TS)
4. Unreported Judgment (WP No.3146 of 2005 dated 16.12.2010)
5. 2019 SCC Online TS 2074: (2020) 1 ALD 49
6. 2008 (5) alt 313 (DB)
7. 2009 (4) ALT 1 (DB)
: :3::
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION Nos.4618 of 2008 and 4760 of 2009
COMMON 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 : :4::
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.
: :5::
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, : :6::
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 : :7::
i.e., Distri
