HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10764 of 2019

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in passing order in Proc.No.B/8024/16 Dt.19-12-2016 as confirmed by the respondent No.2 and 3 in Revision Case No F2/1904/2017 by order dated 31-03-2018 and Appeal No.D2/131/2017 Dt.06-05-2017 respectively directing to resume the assigned agricultural land in an extent of Ac.4.00 in Survey No. 671 (671/48/1/1 Ac.3.00 and 671/30/1 Ac.1.00) of Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District from the petitioner on the alleged ground that there is transfer of assigned land and there was no cultivation in violation of conditions of patta as the same is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction besides being violative of Article 14,21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned order being null and void....”

2. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to Backward Class (B.C) community and hails from economically poor family. It is further stated that the respondent No.4 has assigned agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts in Sy.No.671 of Suryapet Village vide patta No.G/1582/2001 dated 31.05.2001. It is also stated that land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.671 was assigned to Bantu Swamy, who is maternal uncle of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that since said Bantu Swamy had no issues, he adopted her and she succeeded the said land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts and became owner of total land admeasuring Ac.4-00 gts. It is further case of the petitioner that her name is recorded as pattadar and possessor of the subject lands and she is doing cultivation and receiving various incentives sanctioned by the Government from time to time.

3. While the matter stood thus, Respondent No.4–Tahsildar initiated an enquiry under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, “POT Act, 1977”), and issued a notice dated 07.10.2016, stating that the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.671 was kept fallow and that the assignee had violated the assignment conditions by not cultivating the land. Subsequently, Form-I and Form-II notices were issued to the petitioner and the original assignee under Proceedings No.B/8024/2016 dated 31.10.2016, on the ground that the petitioner had acquired the assigned land in violation of the conditions of the assignment patta granted under the POT Act, 1977. As the original assignee, Bantu Swamy, had already expired by the time the notice was issued and had no legal heirs, the notice was affixed on the land in the presence of witnesses. In response, the petitioner submitted explanation dated 15.11.2016. After conducting an enquiry, Respondent No.4 passed an order vide Proceedings No.B/8024/2016 dated 19.12.2016, stating that, out of the total extent of Ac.4-00 gts, the petitioner had sold Ac.1-05 gts to one Bollam Venkatamma, W/o. Raju, in violation of the conditions of the assignment. It was further stated in the said order that the petitioner is neither the pattadar nor related to the original assignee-Bantu Swamy, and that she was claiming possession of Ac.3-00 gts on the ground that it was given to her as Pasupukunkuma. However, she was found to be in unauthorised possession of Ac.4-00 gts of assigned land. The Respondent No.4 further observed that both the petitioner and the assignee had violated the terms and conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958, and consequently, the lands assigned to Bantu Swamy and in possession of the petitioner were resumed to Government custody. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 4A of the POT Act, 1977 on the file of Respondent No.3. After examining the material on record, the Respondent No.3 dismissed t