Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12736
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J
M/s.SRB Dollar County Plot Owners Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
Government – Respondent
W.P.No.22448 of 2014 | W.P.No.32345 of 2014 | W.P.No.18250 of 2016 | W.P.No.18251 of 2016 | W.P.No.18279 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not Specified
For the Respondents: Not Specified
The court ruled that administrative actions taken without proper notice and due process are invalid, necessitating civil court resolution of contested land rights first.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 - Government Memo bearing No.17550/Assn.V(1)/2014-1 dated 19.05.2014 and consequential mutation orders challenged as illegal and arbitrary. (Paras 2, 12, 19, 40)
(B) Jurisdiction and natural justice - Orders issued without hearing affected parties deemed invalid; rights pending civil adjudication need determination before revenue action. (Paras 27, 39)
(C) Finality of orders - Impugned Memo’s claim of order finality disputed due to pending revision, violating proper procedure. (Paras 29, 36)
Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions regarding land assignments to freedom fighters challenged procedural validity of government actions on mutations concerning land title and rights amongst rival parties.
Findings of Court:
The impugned Government Memo and subsequent proceedings are set aside as they violated principles of natural justice and issued without jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether Gov. Memo and mutations were valid considering ongoing disputes concerning land rights and pending appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review determined that administrative actions were void due to lack of due process, highlighting the necessity of final adjudication in civil courts before administrative changes in land records.
Result: Writ petitions allowed and consequent proceedings set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common order on interlinked writ petitions. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's argument focused on land ownership disputes. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. respondents' claims on legitimacy of land assignments. (Para 17 , 18 , 20) |
| 4. court's view on previous proceedings and their implications. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 5. court's consideration of jurisdiction in revenue matters. (Para 32 , 38) |
| 6. final orders and directions given by the court. (Para 40 , 41) |
COMMON ORDER:
As all these writ petitions arise out of the same schedule property and interlinked with each other, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.Nos.22448 and 32345 of 2014 are filed seeking to declare the Government Memo bearing No.17550/Assn.V(1)/2014-1 dated 19.05.2014 issued by the respondent No.1 and the consequential mutation proceedings issued by the respondent No.4 vide Proc.No.B/1603/2013 dated 16.07.2014 in pursuance of the directions issued by the respondent No.2-District Collector vide Lr.No.E1/5710/2007 dated 28.05.2014 pursuant to the instructions of the respondent No.1 and consequential panchanama File bearing No.G4/1319/2014 dated 05.08.2014 are illegal and arbitrary.
3. W.P.Nos.18250, 18251 and 18279 of 2016 are filed seeking to declare the common order passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District dated 07.04.2016 in ROR revision in different case numbers as illegal and arbitrary.
4. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.32345 of 2014 is the respondent No.10 in W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and respondent No.6 in W.P.Nos.18250 and 18251 of 2016. The respondent Nos.7 to 9 in W.P.Nos.22448 and 32445 of 2014 are petitioners in W.P.Nos.18250, 18251 and 18279 of 2016.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.
6. The W.P.No.22448 of 2014 is filed by M/s.SRB Dollar County Plot Owners Welfare Association formed by the purchasers of the petitioner-Company in W.P.No.32345 of 2014 challenging the same impugned proceedings. For the purpose of narrating the facts, W.P.No.32345 of 2014 is taken as a lead case in first batch of cases.
Contentions of the petitioner in W.P.No.32345 of 2014.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it acquired different extents of lands from different persons, who had purchased those lands from the freedom fighters namely Sri V.H.Desai, Sri Raghavendra Rao and Balakistaiah, who were granted the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.10.00 each in Sy.No.108 of Tondupally Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy by the then Tahsildar, Shamshabad vide separate proceedings. The petitioner-Company has developed the entire extent of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.25.00 gts after obtaining mutation order from the respondent No.4- Tahsildar and permission from the Grampanchayat, Tondupally and after development, sold the same to third party purchasers under registered sale deeds. While it being so, the respondent No.4, without conducting any enquiry, has passed resumption order under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (For short ‘the POT Act, 1977’) vide proceedings No.B/651/2005 dated 15.04.2006 stating that the lands are assigned lands and the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner are not valid, but he did not take any steps in the entire extent of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.30.00 in Sy.Nos.108/AA, 108/E and 108/EE , but resumed only the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.25.00 gts, which was developed as plots by the petitioner- Company.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company further submits that challenging the said resumption orders, the petitioner-Company filed appeal before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was dismissed by order dated 20.06.2007 in Appeal No.D/1179/2006, against which, the petitioner- Company filed appeal under Section 4 -A(2) of the POT Act, 1977 be
