Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12738
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J
V.Vivekanand Desai – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.22448 of 2014, 32345 of 2014, 18250 of 2016, 18251 of 2016 and 18279 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not specified
For the Respondents: Not specified
The court ruled that governmental actions regarding land mutations were illegal due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice, necessitating resolution of disputes in civil courts.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - Writ petitions challenging Government Memo and consequential mutation proceedings - Government Memo illegal for failing to respect existing rights. (Paras 40-41)
(B) Jurisdiction - Revenue Divisional Officer cannot determine validity of registered sale deeds in ROR proceedings. (Para 34)
(C) Natural Justice - Proceedings were issued without notice to affected parties, contradicting principles of natural justice. (Para 32)
Facts of the case:
Five writ petitions arose from disputes over land assignments to freedom fighters and subsequent mutations challenged by purchasers. Petitioners claimed sales were valid despite land being resumed under POT Act. (Paras 2-4, 7-11)
Findings of Court:
Court set aside illegal Government Memo and subsequent proceedings, affirming ongoing legal disputes over property ownership must be resolved in civil court, not revenue courts. (Paras 40-41)
Issues: Whether the Government Memo and subsequent mutations are valid; jurisdiction of revenue authorities to adjudicate rights; principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned Memo bypassed the necessary jurisdiction and failed to comply with procedural fairness, thereby voiding the subsequent acts. Writ petitions were appropriately allowed, restoring lawful authority regarding the property disputes. (Paras 32-34)
Result: Writ petitions Nos.22448 and 32345 of 2014 allowed; Writ petitions Nos.18250, 18251, and 18279 of 2016 dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disposal of interlinked writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions of petitioner regarding land acquisition. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. arguments by the respondents regarding validity of mutations. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. court's observations on jurisdiction and findings. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. pending civil claims and their impact on revenue records. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. final orders on writ petitions and implications. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
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,
