Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12737
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
WRIT PETITION Nos.22448 of 2014, 32345 of 2014, 18250 of 2016, 18251 of 2016 and 18279 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners:learned Counsel for the petitioners
For the Respondents:learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the unofficial respondents
Administrative actions affecting property rights must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring disputes are resolved through civil courts before issuing orders.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - Section 4 - Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 - Writ petitions challenging Government orders regarding land reassignment - Government Memo declaring resumption orders invalid deemed arbitrary and lacking due process - Findings emphasize necessity of resolving land disputes through civil courts prior to administrative action; implications on reversion of land titles addressed. (Paras 27, 35, 40)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Administrative actions impacting property rights must observe fair hearing principles. (Paras 12, 38)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner-Company challenges the legality of Government Memo invalidating prior resumption orders concerning lands acquired from original assignees, showcased through convoluted administrative history and multiple appeals.
Findings of Court:
Government Memo deemed arbitrary as it infringes on principles of natural justice and lacks consideration of ongoing civil litigations regarding property rights.
Issues: Did the Government Memo surpass jurisdiction by interfering with ongoing civil disputes and property rights?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that administrative decisions must respect the entrenchment of parties' legal rights in civil suits, establishing precedence for proper adjudication before administrative actions can be enforced.
Result: Writ petitions 22448 and 32345 of 2014 allowed; W.P.Nos.18250, 18251, and 18279 of 2016 dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions challenge government memo actions. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner claims illegal resumption orders and violation of rights. (Para 7 , 8 , 12) |
| 3. respondents argue legality of land assignments and actions. (Para 17 , 18 , 20) |
| 4. court highlights pending appeals affect current proceedings. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. court's final ruling reverses government memo; allows further proceedings. (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 before the Joint Collector, Ranga
