Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1262 (TS)

Banoth Ramamurthy v. State of Telangana

2025-10-17

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:- “... to issue writ, order or direction preferably Writ of mandamus declaring the impugned notices i.e. (1) RC.No.C/910/2025-1 dt.12-10-2025; (2) RC.No.C/910/2025-2 dt.12-10-2025 and (3) RC.No.C/910/2025-2 dt. 12-10-2025 issued by the respondent no.5 in respect of subject land to an extent of Ac.0-30 gts., in Sy.no.136/2 of petitioner nos.1 to 3; an extent of Ac.0-25 gts in Sy.no.136/1 of petitioner no.4 and an extent of Ac.0-25 gts, in Sy.no.136/3 of petitioner no.5 situated at Edulapuram Revenue village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District as illegal, arbitrary, without authority, discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said notices and pass such other or further orders ...” 2. Heard Mr.Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned senior counsel representing Mr.M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners contends that respondent No.5/the Tahsildar vide impugned notices dated 12.10.2025, directed the petitioners to submit their written explanations for violation of the assignment condition No.2 of Patta, as to why the assignment made shall not be cancelled and to resume back the land to Government custody and directed the petitioners to appear in person on 22.10.2025 at 11:00 A.M. along with the records. He states that originally, petitioners were assigned the subject lands in terms of provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958 and G.O.Ms.No.993 dated 13.10.1969 vide Patta Certificate No.C/1629/1986 dated 03.06.1986; that as per the assignment patta granted in favour of the petitioners, the assignee makes the land fit for cultivation within a period of three (3) years as per condition No.2 of the assignment; that as per the report submitted by the GPO, Edulapuram and the Mandal Girdhawar-I, Khammam Rural, the land assigned to each petitioner was not cultivated at any point of time and that the assignee or her legal heirs have violated the assignment patta condition No.2. To substantiate his contention, he relied upon the order dated 08.09.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.22437 of 2010. To substantiate his contention, he relied upon the order dated 08.09.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.22437 of 2010. For better understanding, the operative portion of the said order is extracted as hereunder:- “After carefully considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perusing the order of respondent No.1, I am of the opinion that while no exception can be taken to respondent No.1 holding an enquiry, so long as the pattas granted in favour of the assignees is not cancelled, their right of enjoyment cannot be interdicted. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of respondent No.1, to the extent of directing respondent No.3 to take possession, cannot be sustained. However, respondent No.1 is entitled to proceed with the enquiry and pass a final order after considering the final report of respondent No.2. Till passing of a final order, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the enjoyment of the property in question. Accordingly, the order of respondent No.1, to the extent of dispossessing the petitioners, is set aside. The petitioners, however, shall not change the physical features of the lands in question or alienate or encumber the same in any manner till completion of the enquiry and passing of final order by respondent No.1. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.” 4. Learned senior counsel further submits that though this Court vide order dated 08.09.2010 in W.P.No.22437 of 2010 had set aside the order of respondent No.1, to the extent of dispossessing the petitioners, but however, directed the petitioners not to change the physical features of the lands in question or alienate or encumber the same in any manner till completion of enquiry and passing of final order by respondent No.1; that till date i.e., even after a lapse of about fifteen (15) years, no enquiry has been conducted and no order has been passed by respondent No.1/Joint Collector. 5. He further states that a similar case has come up for consideration in W.P.No.43712 of 2017, wherein and whereunder the subject land therein was assigned to the assignee in the year, 1975 and the official respondents have issued the resumption orders on 19.12.2016 i.e., after forty one (41) years, on the ground of violation of assignment conditions. Relying on the decisions passed in B. Adinarayana Murthy Vs. Collector , 1999 (6) ALT 322 (SB) and Jinka Chendrayudu Vs. Relying on the decisions passed in B. Adinarayana Murthy Vs. Collector , 1999 (6) ALT 322 (SB) and Jinka Chendrayudu Vs. Joint Collector , 2011 (5) ALT 119 , this Court vide order dated 03.09.2025 in W.P.No.43712 of 2017 held as under:- In view of the above findings, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the No.4 in proceedings in No.B/8024/16 dated 19.12.2016 and also the consequential orders passed by the respondent No.3 and 2 in Appeal No.D2/132/2017 dated 06.05.2017 and Revision Case No.F2/1676/2017 dated 25.11.2017 respectively and the respondents are directed to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings by following the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for payment of compensation to the petitioner for acquired land and complete the same within four (4) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if the respondents want to acquire the remaining portion of land which was in possession of the petitioner, they are directed not to interfere with the said land, without following due procedure. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. Learned senior counsel further contends that the petitioners have already filed W.P.No.29456 of 2025 alleging that respondent No.3 was trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property without following due process of law. Vide order dated 25.09.2025 in W.P.No.29456 of 2025, this Court had directed respondent No.3 to follow the due procedure laid down under law before taking any action against the petitioners. He states that the official respondents are again trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property in the pretext of issuing the impugned notices. Therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Opposing the same, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contends that the petitioners were granted sufficient time to submit their explanation on the violation of condition No.2 and that there is no perversity in issuing the impugned notices; that inspite of submitting the written explanations, the petitioners rushed to this Court, at premature stage. Therefore, he states that the present Writ Petition is misconceived and seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition. 8. Therefore, he states that the present Writ Petition is misconceived and seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition. 8. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioners to file written explanation to the impugned notices dated 12.10.2025 before the concerned authority within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Upon filing detailed explanations, in terms of the orders passed by this Court, the official respondents are directed to examine the same in detail granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass appropriate reasoned order, inclusively on the aspect of the inordinate delay caused in issuing the impugned notices. 9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. It is made clear, respondent authorities are directed to follow the procedure contemplated under law, in the event they intend to pass adverse orders against the petitioners. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.