THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

ORDER:

Heard Sri J.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mohd. Habeebuddin, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have assigned the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.00 gts and more each to the petitioners in various survey numbers situated at Divitipalli Village H/o.Edira Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal and District and they are in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the agricultural lands for all these years and they have not alienated the said lands nor violated any clauses of assignment nor kept the lands fallow since the date of assignment. While it being so, the respondent No.4 has issued Form-I notices to the petitioners in File No.B/25197/2010 dated 17.09.2010 stating that they have alienated the assigned lands to the third parties in contravention of the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and sought for explanation as to show cause why the lands should not be resumed by the Government. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached the respondent No.4 and explained orally stating that they have not violated any assignment rules and submitted their pattadar passbooks and pahanies showing that they are cultivating the lands by raising loans from the Nationalized Banks.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that when the respondent No.4 is trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands for the purpose of construction of Government buildings i.e., District Jail, Medical College and double bedroom houses, they filed W.P.No.24982 of 2016 and the same was disposed of on 08.08.2016 directing the respondents to furnish the copies of resumption orders to the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 has served the impugned resumption orders in File No.B/25197/2010 dated 22.12.2010 in exercise of powers vested vide G.O.Ms.No.1562 Revenue Department dated 13.09.1963 stating that the petitioners have not brought the lands under cultivation even after a lapse of more than three years and even after receipt of the notice also, they have not come forward with request to grant time for bringing the assigned lands under cultivation. He further submits that the said resumption orders were not served on the petitioners and they are antedated and manipulated to avoid payment of compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that if the respondents want to acquire the lands of the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled for payment of compensation of market value on par with absolute owners as held by the larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer v. Mekala Pandu, 2004 (2) ALD 451 . The respondents cannot acquire the lands of the petitioners without initiating land acquisition

proceedings and without making payment of compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Judgment of a larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer v. Mekala Pandu (Supra-1) and also the Judgments passed by this Court in B.Adinarayana Murthy v. Collector, 1999 (6) ALT 322 (S.B.) and Jinka Chendrayudu v. Joint Collector and submits that the petitioners are entitled for compensation on par with the private lands and requested to allow the writ petition.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment basing on the counter submits that during the year, 2010, the then Tahsildar , Mahabubnagar having noticed that the total extent of land so assigned was fallow and has never been put to agriculture use since the date of assignment has issued notices to all the assignees or their legal heirs on 17.09.2010. As the

3 2011 (5) ALT 119

assignees or their legal heirs have not submitted any explanation, the impugned resumption orders were issued