THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.4 in passing the order in Proc.B/8024/16, dated 19.12.2016 as confirmed by the respondent Nos.3 and 2 in Appeal No.D2/125/2017, dated 06.05.2017 and Revision Case No.F2/1903/2017, dated 25.11.2017 respectively, directing to resume the assigned agricultural land of the petitioner admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.671 (671/52) situated at Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District as arbitrary and illegal and requested to set aside the impugned orders.

2. Heard Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohd. Habeebuddin, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government has assigned the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.671 situated at Suryapet in favour of the paternal grandfather of petitioner namely late Chitamalla Venkataiah @ Venkaiah, who has one son by name Papaiah and daughter Poolamma. After his demise, the petitioner being the daughter of Papaiah and said Poolamma had succeeded Ac.1-00 each and they have been cultivating the land by raising crops like paddy, reed gram and jowar etc. The respondents have issued patta certificate No.G/1582/2001 dated .06.2001 in favour of the petitioner, her name was mutated in the revenue records, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in her favour and since then, she is in possession and enjoyment of the said land by cultivating the same. While it being so, after a lapse of 41 years of assignment, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar issued Form-II notice dated 31.10.2016 stating that the petitioner was found to be the transferee of the assigned lands in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,1977 and kept the land fallow. The petitioner gave reply on 25.11.2016 along with the relevant documents. The respondent No.4 without considering the said documents has passed the impugned order in Proc.No.B/8024/16 dated 19.12.2016 for resumption of the assigned agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.671 (671/52) situated at Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner kept the land fallow in violation of the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was dismissed vide Appeal No.D2/125/2017 dated 06.05.2017, against which the petitioner filed revision and the same was also dismissed in Revision Case No.F2/1903/2017 dated 25.11.2017.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner cultivated the subject land for the last 19 years, as such the land cannot be resumed on the vague allegation that the land kept fallow. The impugned orders were passed without considering the procedure of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act, 1977), which is a social welfare legislation.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the pahanies for the years 1997-98 to 2013- 14, to which the respondents are referring, cannot be taken into consideration since the assignment was done in the year 1975, much prior to the said date as such the condition of within three years from the date of assignment of the land cannot be said as violated by the petitioner. The initiation of impugned action is purely with a view to avoid payment of compensation by acquiring the land and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment basing on the counter filed by the respondents would submit that the subject land was originally assigned to the petitioner vide Proc