THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing the proceedings No.C/1994/2015 dated 23.12.2017 for resumption of the assigned lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.00 gts in Sy.No.46/5 of the petitioner No.1, Ac.4.00 gts in Sy.No.46/6 of the petitioner No.2, Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.46/15 of the petitioner No.3, Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.46/17 of the petitioner No.4 and Ac.5.00 gts in Sy.No.46/2 of the petitioner No.5 situated at Anukunta Village, Adilabad Rural Mandal, Adilabad District as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mohd. Habeebuddin, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment and perused the material on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the total land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.17-00 gts in Sy.No.46 was assigned to the petitioners and their ancestors in the year, 1952, pattadar passbooks and title deeds vide patta Nos.182, 50, 23, 82 and 87 respectively were issued, their names were mutated in the revenue records and also issued pahanies to them and since then they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. The respondent No.4 has issued Form-I notices vide No.C/1994/2015 dated 24.08.2015 under Rule 3 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 to the petitioners on the allegation of violation of assignment condition i.e., making bricks/under fallow and the petitioners have submitted their explanations on 14.09.2015. He submits that without considering their explanations, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar has issued resumption orders on 25.11.2015. Questioning the said orders, the petitioners have filed appeals before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer and as those appeals have not been taken up, they have filed several writ petitions and the same were disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to dispose of the appeals filed by the petitioners by directing the parties to maintain status quo.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the appeals filed by the petitioners were allowed vide Proc.No.C/122/2016 dated 17.08.2016, wherein the respondent No.3 after inspection of the fields observed that the petitioners were cultivating the subject lands by raising the crops in kharif 2016-17 and as per the status report of the respondent No.4 vide Lr.No.C/1994/2015 dated 25.07.2016, the petitioners were in possession of the subject lands and directed the respondent No.4 to restore the possession of the subject lands to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners made a representation on 18.08.2016 for entering their names in online pahanies. Initially the respondent No.4 has not considered the same and the petitioners have filed W.P.No.39338 of 2016 and the same was disposed of on 05.11.2016. Subsequently, the respondent No.4 has considered the online applications and issued online pahanies to the petitioners.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in spite of issuance of online pahanies, again the respondent No.4 has passed the impugned resumption orders alleging that the petitioners never cultivated the lands and kept fallow which is contrary to the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 17.08.2016. He further submits that once the possession of the subject lands were restored to the petitioners after conducting field inspection and enquiry, again on the same grounds, the impugned resumption order was issued and the respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to reopen the issue on the allegation of violation of assignment conditions by the petitioners and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned resumption order.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment based on the counter averments submits that against the impugned order, the petitioners have remedy of appeal under Section