In the interest of justice, a representation filed against a land resumption order may be treated as a statutory appeal, particularly when guidelines exist for the reassignment of assigned lands to landless bona fide purchasers.

ORDER : (ORAL)

This writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings No. B/370- 78/2023 dated 17.03.2025 issued by respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Jagityal Mandal (Rural) and District, whereby respondent No.5 - Girdavar-II of Jagityal Rural Mandal was directed to take over possession of the land admeasuring Ac.1-07 guntas in Survey No.437/49 situated at Narsingapur Village, Jagityal Rural Mandal, Jagityal District, from the petitioner, as being arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. Heard Mr. P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. H. Somaiah Ezra Shastri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment, appearing for the respondents, and perused the material available on record.

3. It is submitted that the impugned proceedings have been issued under the provisions of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘POT Act 1977’) resuming the subject land from the petitioner.

4. The impugned order shows that show-cause notice dated 31.01.2025 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be summarily evicted for contravening the provisions of the POT Act 1977; and that land admeasuring Ac.1-07 guntas in Survey No.437/49 of Narsingapur Village, Jagityal Rural Mandal, was assigned to one Mupparapu Hanmanthu and the same came to be transferred to the petitioner.

5. It is stated that the petitioner submitted explanation to the show-cause notice contending that he purchased the subject land under simple sale deed in good faith without verifying the revenue records and he was issued pattadar pass book. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering his explanation, the impugned proceedings are issued.

6. Learned Assistant Government appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has submitted representation on 21.04.2025 before respondent No.3 - Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagityal, challenging the impugned resumption order. Thus, having availed appropriate remedy, the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue the present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and he was not aware at the time of purchase that the subject land was assigned land. Learned counsel further submitted that on the representation of the petitioner, so far orders have not been passed by respondent No.3. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not properly advised to file a statutory appeal challenging the impugned proceedings dated 17.03.2025. Instead of filing appeal, the petitioner filed representation on 21.04.2025 to respondent No.3. The petitioner was under the impression that his representation will be treated as appeal. However, learned counsel submitted that by way of abundant caution, necessary steps will be taken to file statutory appeal. But as the appeal challenging the impugned proceedings has to be filed within a period of 90 days, the petitioner may encounter difficulty in filing the same.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in order to protect the interest of small and marginal farmers, amendment was made to POT Act 1977, by Act No.12 of 2018 dated 10.04.2018. Further, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), Telangana, issued Memo/Circular No. Assn. I(1)/33/2016, dated 19.03.2018, framing guidelines for reassignment of land to landless bona fide purchasers.

9. In the above circumstances, in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to treat the representation submitted by the peti