Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 974 (TS)

Gudipudi Padmavathi v. State of Telangana

2025-09-03

K.SARATH

body2025
ORDER : K. SARATH, J. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.4 in passing the order in Proc.B/8024/16, dated 19.12.2016 as confirmed by the respondent Nos.3 and 2 in Appeal No.D2/134/2017, dated 06.05.2017 and Revision Case No.F2/1900/2017, dated 31.03.2018 respectively, directing to resume the assigned agricultural land of the petitioner admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.671 (671/2/1) situated at Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District as arbitrary and illegal and requested to set aside the impugned orders. 2. Heard Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohd. Habeebuddin, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government has assigned the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-00 in Sty.No.671 situated at Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District in favour of the father of petitioner namely Mora Venkulu in the year, 1997 and since then her father was cultivating the said land by raising red gram, jowar etc. After his demise, the petitioner has succeeded the assigned land and her name was mutated in the revenue records, pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued in her favour and since then she was in possession and enjoyment of the said land by cultivating the same. While it being so, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar issued Form-I notice dated 07.10.2016 stating that the petitioner has kept the subject land as fallow in violation of the provisions of Section 4 of Telangana Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and Form-II notice was issued on 31.10.2016 stating that the petitioner was found to be the transferee of the assigned land in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(1)(2) of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,1977. The petitioner gave reply along with the relevant documents. The respondent No.4 without considering the said documents has passed the impugned order in Proc.No.B/8024/16 dated 19.12.2016 for resumption of the assigned agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.671 (671/2/1) situated at Suryapet Village and Mandal, Suryapet District from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner kept the land fallow in violation of the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was dismissed vide Appeal No.D2/134/2017 dated 06.05.2017, against which the petitioner filed revision and the same was also dismissed in Revision Case No.F2/1900/2017 dated 31.03.2018. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner cultivated the subject land for the last 19 years, as such the land cannot be resumed on the vague allegation that the land kept fallow. The impugned orders were passed without considering the procedure of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act, 1977), which is a social welfare legislation. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the pahanies for the years 1997-98 to 2013- 14, to which the respondents are referring, cannot be taken into consideration since the assignment was done in the year 1977, much prior to the said date as such the condition of within three years from the date of assignment of the land cannot be said as violated by the petitioner. The initiation of impugned action is purely with a view to avoid payment of compensation by acquiring the land and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment basing on the counter filed by the respondents would submit that the subject land was allotted with a condition that the assignee or his legal heirs shall brought the same into cultivation within three (3) years from the date of assignment, but there is no evidence to show that the land was cultivated by the petitioner and in the pahanies for the year 1997-98 to 2013-14, the columns describing cultivation and crop particulars from 16 to 21 reflecting as “Padava (Fallow). It is further stated that during the year, 2016, the District Reorganization was taken up by the Telangana Government and during the process of identification of availability of the Government lands for construction of offices in the newly formed Suryapet District, it was found that there is no Government vacant land and major portion of the lands assigned is kept unutilized and uncultivated by the assignees or their legal heirs. In view of the same, notices were issued under the Act, 1977 and the petitioner failed to show the evidence that she has been cultivating the land in terms of conditions of the Assigned lands and in view of the same, the subject land was resumed. In the course of action the land in Sy.No.671 to an extent of Ac.85.13 guntas was resumed duly following the procedure under the Act for the purpose of construction of public offices. The appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner were rightly dismissed by the respondents as she failed to raise any new grounds. Neither the father of petitioner nor the petitioner has cultivated the subject land right from the date of assignment till date and thereby the petitioner has violated the conditions laid down in Patta Certificate in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.07.1958. An extent of Ac.85.13 guntas was resumed and out of the said extent, an extent of Ac.20.00 guntas was allocated for construction of Office of the Superintendent of Police, Suryapet District and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. After hearing both sides and on pursuing the records, this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute with regard to the assignment of subject land to the father of petitioner by the respondent authorities in the year, 1997 and after his death, the petitioner has inherited the subject land. It is the contention of the petitioner that ever since the date of assignment, her father as well as petitioner was cultivating the land. While it being, the respondent authorities have issued notice to the petitioner on 07.10.2016 as to why the subject land cannot be resumed for keeping the land fallow. For which the petitioner submitted her reply, however, the respondent No.4 without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, only basing on the report of Mandal Girdawar, resumed the land on 19.12.2016. The petitioner aggrieved by the resumption orders, filed appeal vide Appeal No.D2/134/2017 and the same was dismissed by the respondent No.3 on 06.05.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Revision vide Revision Case No.F2/1900/2017 and the same was also dismissed on 31.03.2018 by the respondent No.2. 8. The petitioner aggrieved by the resumption orders, filed appeal vide Appeal No.D2/134/2017 and the same was dismissed by the respondent No.3 on 06.05.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Revision vide Revision Case No.F2/1900/2017 and the same was also dismissed on 31.03.2018 by the respondent No.2. 8. On perusal of the impugned resumption proceedings vide Ref.No.B/8024/16, dated 19.12.2016 issued by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, the sole ground is that the petitioner failed to bring the land into cultivation within three years from the date of assignment. In the counter, the respondents have contended that the land was resumed from the petitioner for construction of District Offices in newly formed Suryapet District as the petitioner has kept the subject land fallow. But in the impugned order No.B/8024/2015 dated 19.12.2016 it was not specifically mentioned that the subject land was resumed for the public purpose, which clearly shows that the respondents have taken contra stand in their counter. The respondents want to acquire the land from the petitioner without paying compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. 9. The Assignees of the Government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose as held by larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Mekala Pandu , 2004 (2) ALT 546 and the facts of the said Judgment squarely apply to the instant case and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: “111. In the circumstances, we hold that the assignees of the government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose. We further hold that even in cases where the State does not invoke the covenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for such public purpose and resorts to acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the assignees shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land.” (Emphasis added) 10. Further, the power of resumption of assigned lands cannot be extended beyond 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 as held by this Court in B.Adinarayana Murthy v. Collector , 1999 (6) ALT 322 (SB) and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: “18. On this ground alone, I must say, the power of resumption of assigned 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 heirs 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.” 11. 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.” 11. Further, this Court in Jinka Chendrayudu v. Joint Collector , [ 2011 (5) ALT 119 ] power to cancel D-Form Patta or resume the land by the Revenue authorities must be exercised within a reasonable time. The relevant potion of the said Judgment is extracted as under: “11. Be that as it may, the petitioner claims that the land in question was assigned to him in the year 1976, and if according to respondent No.3, the land, as per the conditions of D-Form patta, was required to bring the land under cultivation within three years from the date of its issuance, and if the petitioner failed to bring the land under cultivation, within three years from the date of its issuance, then respondent No.3, ought to have issued notice calling upon him to show cause as to why the D-Form patta should not be cancelled, immediately after expiry of three years from the date of issuance of the D-Form patta, and instead of doing that, he has issued the show cause notice on 17.02.2005 i.e., after lapse of nearly 30 years. He further submitted that since respondent No.3 issued the show cause notice after lapse of nearly 30 years, it will not be possible to ascertain as to whether the land was brought under cultivation within three years from the date of issuance of D-Form patta or not. 12. This Court in Sekhari Aruna Kumari v. Dist. Collector, Visakhapatnam and Madamaneni Chinnaswamy (died) per LRs. v. Joint Collector, Chittoor, held that power to cancel the D-Form patta or resume the land, by the revenue authorities must be exercised within a reasonable time and that if D-Form patta was to be cancelled, the grounds on which it is sought to be cancelled have to stated, to enable the assignee to show cause. v. Joint Collector, Chittoor, held that power to cancel the D-Form patta or resume the land, by the revenue authorities must be exercised within a reasonable time and that if D-Form patta was to be cancelled, the grounds on which it is sought to be cancelled have to stated, to enable the assignee to show cause. In the instant case, the D-Form patta was cancelled after lapse of 30 years, and the show cause notice issued in that regard, did not specify the ground on which the DKT was to be cancelled, and in fact, it is very clear from the proceedings as well as the record produced, the show cause notice, which led to passing of cancellation of D-Form patta granted in favour of the petitioner, is at the instance of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Merely because respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been in possession of the land in question since several years, it is not open for them to seek cancellation of patta granted to some other person and seek assignment of the same in their favour.” (Emphasis added) 12 . In the instant case the subject land assigned land to the petitioner in the year, 1997. The respondents have issued the present impugned resumption orders on 19.12.2016 on the ground of violation of assignment conditions, after 19 years. The findings of the above Judgments squarely apply to the facts of the instant case as this Court categorically held that after lapse of several years, the respondents have no authority to resume the lands on flimsy grounds. 13. In the instant case, the respondents resumed the land and allotted to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Suryapet and constructed the buildings in some portion of the acquired land. In view of the same, the respondents have to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and pay compensation to the petitioner No.2, as held by the larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer v. Mekala Pandu (Supra-1). 14. In view of the same, the respondents have to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and pay compensation to the petitioner No.2, as held by the larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer v. Mekala Pandu (Supra-1). 14. 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.D2/134/2017 dated 06.05.2017 and Revision Case No.F2/1900/2017 dated 31.03.2018 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. 15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.