Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 194 (TS)

K. Balamma v. State of Telangana

2025-04-01

K.SARATH

body2025
ORDER : K.SARATH, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned orders in Lr.C.No.1319/2107 dated 27.07.2017, whereby the respondent No.4/Tahsildar, Kollapur cancelled the patta granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas situated in Sy.No.130, situated at Kollapur Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’) without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and sought to set aside the same. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was assigned agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas situated in Sy.No.130, situated in Kollapur Village and Mandal in the year, 1991 and she was also issued Pattadar Pass Book and Form 1-B Register in her favour and since then the petitioner and her family members are eking out their livelihood by cultivating the said land. The petitioner was also issued with D- Form patta. The respondent-authorities informed the petitioner that the D-Form patta given to the petitioner was resumed on the ground the petitioner has not been cultivating the said land for the last three years and supplied copy of impugned order in Lr.No.C/1319/2017 dated 27.07.2017. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though in the impugned order it is stated that a notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.07.2017, no notice was served on the petitioner and the impugned order is passed behind back of the petitioner. The conditions of patta state that the land should be brought under cultivation within two years from the date of assignment, whereas in the impugned order it is stated that for the last three years the petitioner was not cultivating the land which is not at all a ground to cancel the patta granted in favour of the petitioner and therefore the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 is without any notice and the same is ex facie illegal and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. 5. 5. On the other hand the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.4 would submit that the petitioner was assigned with subject land by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 26.07.1958 and as per the terms and conditions of the said G.O., the petitioner ought to have brought the said land into cultivation within three years from the date of assignment, but as the petitioner never cultivated the said land at any point of time, a notice was issued to the petitioner vide Ref.No.C/1319/2017 dated 04.07.2017, which was served on the daughter-in-law of the petitioner namely K.Laxmi and as the petitioner failed to submit any reply within the mandatory period and the impugned order was passed resuming the subject land by conducting Panchanama dated 28.07.2017. The subject land is resumed for the purpose of construction of Double Bed room houses and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. After hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute with regard to assignment of suit schedule land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.130 of Kollapur Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District to the petitioner. In the writ affidavit, the petitioner stated that D-Form patta was issued to her in the year 1991, but the respondents in their counter stated that the subject land was assigned to the petitioner in the year,1974 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 26.07.1958. In the impugned order in Proc.No.C/1319/2017, dated 27.07.2017 it is stated that the petitioner is not cultivating three years prior to passing of the impugned order by violating the conditions of assignment patta. It is stated in the impugned order that basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer dated 23.06.2017, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.07.2017. 7. The main contention of the petitioner is that without issuing any notice to the petitioner with regard to the violation of conditions of assignment patta granted to the petitioner on the ground that she was not cultivating the said land. In fact, without following any procedure the respondent authorities wanted to resume the subject land for the purpose of construction of double bed room houses, without paying any land acquisition compensation to the petitioner. 8. In fact, without following any procedure the respondent authorities wanted to resume the subject land for the purpose of construction of double bed room houses, without paying any land acquisition compensation to the petitioner. 8. In para No.4 of the counter of the respondents, it is stated that a notice was served on the petitioner on 04.07.2017 but the petitioner failed to file any reply within the mandatory period, the impugned order was passed. Contrary to the said statement, in para No.5 of the same counter it is stated that the notice was served to the daughter-in-law of the petitioner namely K.Laxmi, but the respondents failed to file any document along with the counter to show that the notice was served to the petitioner or her daughter-in- law, but merely stated the same in their counter affidavit. Moreover, in the impugned order, nowhere mentioned that notice was served to the petitioner or her daughter-in-law, but just mentioned as notice dated 04.07.2017. It clearly shows that the respondents without issuing any proper notice, issued impugned proceedings. 9. The respondents along with the counter filed panchanama dated 23.06.2017, conducted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector. As per the contents of the said panchanama, the revenue authorities have conducted panchanama in the presence of panchas, without calling the petitioner or other assignees, statements of panchas were recorded, wherein they stated that out of 28 assignees, 17 assignees are not cultivating the land including the petitioner. Without conducting panchanama in the presence of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 passed the impugned order merely basing on the panchanama dated 23.06.2017 and in view of the same, the said panchanama cannot be taken into account. The respondents have to follow the procedure as contemplated under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition and Transfer) Act, 1977 for resumption of the assigned lands. 10. The petitioner along with the writ petition, filed pattadar pass book issued by the respondents in the year, 1994 and also Form-1B Register dated 27.05.2017, which clearly shows that the petitioner is in possession of the subject and cultivating the same. Contrary to the same, the respondent authorities in the impugned order stating that the petitioner has not been cultivating the land for last three years. In the panchanama dated 23.06.2017 it is stated that the petitioner and other assignees are not cultivating the land from the date of assignment. Contrary to the same, the respondent authorities in the impugned order stating that the petitioner has not been cultivating the land for last three years. In the panchanama dated 23.06.2017 it is stated that the petitioner and other assignees are not cultivating the land from the date of assignment. It is clearly shows the intention of the respondents for passing the impugned order is that the subject land is feasible for construction of double bed room houses. Without mentioning the same, the respondent No.4 has issued impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner is not cultivating the land for the past three years. The respondent No.4, without following the procedure, have resumed the subject land for the purpose of construction of double bed room houses. The respondents without paying Land Acquisition compensation and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the Village Revenue Officer have conducted panchanama in the absence of petitioner and in view of the same, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 is arbitrary, illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 11. Further, in a similar issue, this Court in B.Adinarayana Murthy Vs., Collector, Ananthapur District , [1996 (6) ALD 322 (SB)] and another, held that even if power of resumption is available to the authorities, such power cannot be exercised beyond long lapse of time. The relevant paras of the said Judgment are extracted as under: “17. Though the Act No.9 of 1977, the Legislature desired to help the landless poor persons by assignment the Government waste lands to them. This measure is intended to achieving the objective of ensuring social justice to all citizens of the State. Such an objective could be achieved if the State administrative machinery of the State remains in its ‘dream world’ and assume certain powers which are not available to it, the only suffers of such maladministrative acts are the poorer sections of the society. Even if the power of resumption is available to the authorities, such a power cannot be exercised after a lapse of 34 years. 18. On this ground alone, I must say, the power of resumption of assignment lands cannot be extended beyond a reasonable period, in any event, not later than five to six years. Even if the power of resumption is available to the authorities, such a power cannot be exercised after a lapse of 34 years. 18. On this ground alone, I must say, the power of resumption of assignment lands cannot be extended beyond a reasonable period, in any event, not later than five to six years. even within five to six years when the power has to be exercised, there must be necessary inspection by the authorities on the basis of which a decision to resume the lands be taken preceding a notice to the parties concerned. Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act envisages that even if there is violation of certain terms and conditions by the assignee the land shall be restored to the assignee or his legal heris as the case may be and if there is a violation of the terms of assignment for the second time, it would be open to the authorities to resume the lands. I have, therefore, no hesitation to say that the respondents have no authority to resume the lands after long lapse of more than 34 years on some flimsy grounds The first question is answered accordingly”. (Emphasis added) 12. In the instant case also, after lapse of more than 26 years, the respondent authorities, without following the procedure as contemplated under law, issued impugned proceedings of resuming the assignment land, In view of the same the impugned order issued by the respondent No.4 is liable to be asset aside. 13. With the above findings, the Writ Petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 in Lr.No.C.No.1319/2017 dated 27.07.2017 in respect of land of the petitioner admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.130 of Kollapur Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. If the respondents wants to acquire the land of the petitioner they have to follow the procedure as contemplated under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 . No order as to costs. 14. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.