Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 846 (TS)

Mohd. Nizamuddin v. State of Telangana

2020-12-09

SHAMEEM AKTHER

body2020
ORDER : Dr. Shameem Akther, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, wherein, the following prayer is made: "…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the reiteration of resumption vide proceedings of the District Collector pursuant to orders Dt. 21.11.2019 in Second Appeal vide Compt. No. E1/18086/19 subsequent to orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Office, Mahabubnagar vide proceedings No. G/400/2018 Dt. 30.06.2018 in appeal against Resumption Order vide No. B/501/1/2017 Dt. 25.05.2017 passed by the Tahsildar, Bhoothpur Mandal in respect of the land in Sy. No. 221/12 for an extent of Ac. 02-39 guntas situated at Bhoothpur Village & Mandal, as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires, against the provisions of the Telangana rights in land and pattadar pass books act, 1971 and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to grant ROR on the land in Sy. No. 221/12 for an extent of Ac. 02-39 guntas, situated at Bhoothpur Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and pass such other order or orders…" 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a poor landless person and he belongs to Below Poverty Line. The petitioner has purchased the land admeasuring Ac. 2-39 gts in Sy. No. 221/12 situated at Bhoothpur Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, from Md. Yousuf, for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/- by selling the gold ornaments of his wife, in the year 2002. Thereafter, the vendor of the petitioner i.e., Md. Yousuf, executed a simple sale deed dated 05.10.2009 in favour of the petitioner for a sale consideration Rs. 2,00,000/-. Later, when the petitioner got to know that the subject land is assigned land, he made representations before the competent authorities and the respondent No. 3-Tahsildar, Bhoothpur, re-assigned the subject land in favour of the petitioner and issued pattadar passbook. It is contended that the respondent No. 3 erroneously issued Form-II notice dated 31.03.2017 to the petitioner, stating that the subject land is assigned land and passed resumption order dated 25.05.2017 in File No. B/501/1/2017. It is contended that the respondent No. 3 erroneously issued Form-II notice dated 31.03.2017 to the petitioner, stating that the subject land is assigned land and passed resumption order dated 25.05.2017 in File No. B/501/1/2017. The first appeal preferred before the respondent No. 4-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar District, was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.06.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Second Appeal before the respondent No. 2-District Collector, Mahabubnagar vide Compt. No. E1/18086/2019 and it was also dismissed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar (FAC) vide judgment dated 21.11.2019, which is erroneous and illegal. It is further contended that in view of mandate given under Section 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short "the Act, 1977"), the impugned order of resumption passed by the Tahsildar concerned and confirmed by the other revenue authorities is illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable under law and ultimately prayed to allow the writ petition as prayed for. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioner does not belong to Below Poverty Line. Furthermore, the contention of the petitioner that the subject land was re-assigned in favour of the petitioner is false and not supported by any documentary evidence. This aspect was examined by all the authorities concerned and concluded that there was no re-assignment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner. It is further contended that Section 3(5) of the Act, 1977 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner said to have purchased the subject land in the year 2002, which is after the commencement of the Act, 1977. The authorities concerned are justified in passing the resumption order and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. As seen from the material placed on record, the respondent No. 3 issued Form-II notice dated 31.03.2017 to the petitioner and passed resumption order dated 25.05.2017 vide File No. B/501/1/2017. Against which, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No. 4-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar District vide File No. G/400/2018 and the said appeal was dismissed by the respondent No. 4 vide judgment dated 30.06.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal before the respondent No. 2-District Collector, Mahabubnagar vide Compt. Against which, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No. 4-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar District vide File No. G/400/2018 and the said appeal was dismissed by the respondent No. 4 vide judgment dated 30.06.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal before the respondent No. 2-District Collector, Mahabubnagar vide Compt. No. E1/18086/2019 and it was also dismissed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar (FAC) vide judgment dated 21.11.2019, confirming the orders passed by the respondent No. 3-Tahsildar and respondent No. 4-Revenue Divisional Officer. Challenging the said judgment dated 21.11.2019, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that he purchased the land admeasuring Ac. 2-39 gts in Sy. No. 221/12 situated at Bhoothpur Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, from Md. Yousuf, in the year 2002, for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/- and the said amount was paid by selling the gold ornaments of his wife. The petitioner has not filed any document to show that he purchased the subject land in the year 2002. Instead the petitioner has filed copy of simple sale deed dated 05.10.2009 said to have been executed by Md. Yousuf, in his favour, for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- in respect of subject land. In the said simple sale deed, there is no mention of petitioner selling the gold ornaments of his wife and paying the sale consideration. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is a landless poor person and he belongs to Below Poverty Line. It may be noted that a person possessing gold ornaments worth Rs. 1,25,000/- or Rs. 2,00,000/-, as the case may be, would not fall under the category of Below Poverty Line. There is no record to hold that the petitioner belongs to Below Poverty Line. All the authorities concerned have concurrently held that the petitioner does not belong to Below Poverty Line and he belongs to Above Poverty Line. 7. The next contention of the petitioner that when he came to know that the subject land is assigned land, he made representations before the competent authorities and the subject land was re-assigned in his favour by the respondent No. 3-Tahsildar, Bhoothpur. This aspect was dealt with by all the authorities concerned and it was held that there was no re-assignment of subject land in favour of the petitioner. This aspect was dealt with by all the authorities concerned and it was held that there was no re-assignment of subject land in favour of the petitioner. No document has been filed by the petitioner to substantiate the said contention. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the petitioner had re-assigned the subject land following due procedure made under the Act, 1977. It is pertinent to state that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is directed, not against the decision, but the decision-making process. Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, only on grounds of perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity. Except on these grounds, administrative decisions cannot be interfered with. A decision is vitiated by irrationality, if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have taken such decision. In the instant case, none of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner do establish any of the above circumstances to vary the decision in question. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.