1. This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings No.E3/2966/2019 dated 17.05.2021 of the respondent No.2 in treating the lands of the petitioners admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13-34 gts in Sy.Nos.163 and 179/1 to 179/6 situated at Kothapalli Village, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District as Government lands and denying to issue NOC to them for the said lands as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the said proceedings by directing the respondents to issue No objection Certificate to the petitioners.

2. Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the writ petition, they have mentioned with regard to the land situated in Sy.No.163 also. But the impugned order was passed by the respondent No.2 with regard to the lands in Sy.Nos.179/1 to 179/6 situated at Kothapalli Village, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District and not for the land situated in Sy.No.163 and the petitioners are not claiming with regard to the land in Sy.No.163 situated at Kothapalli Village in the instant writ petition and inadvertently they have included the Sy.No.163 in the writ petition and the same is not the subject matter of this writ petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have inherited the subject lands from their ancestors and pattadar passbooks and e-passbooks were issued to them and they were also getting financial assistance from the Government under the scheme of ‘Rythu Bandhu’. While it being so, the respondents have included the subject lands in the prohibitory list and the same was furnished to the respondent No.5 for showing the subject lands under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as a result the petitioners have deprived of their right of sale of their properties. Questioning the action of the respondents in not issuing No objection Certificate for registration of the subject lands in favour of the third parties, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.23756 of 2019 and the same was disposed of on 05.11.2019 directing the respondent No.2-District Collector to examine the claim of the petitioners as ventilated in their representation dated 15.12.2018 and take appropriate decision as warranted by law by assigning due reasons. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 has conducted enquiry and issued the impugned proceedings rejecting the claim of the petitioners holding that the petitioners have failed to produce any evidence to show that the subject lands were assigned to their ancestors prior to 25.07.1958 i.e, the date of issuance of assignment guidelines as per G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per the Sethwar, land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.8-31 gts in Sy.No.179/1 is shown as Kharij Khata, land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5-00 gts in Sy.No.179/2 is private land in the name of Asoda Bondaiah S/o.Rajaiah and the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0-03 gts in Sy.No.179/3 and these survey numbers are shown as ‘Shivayi Jamabandi’ exempted from collecting the revenue tax as the land is being treated as Sarkari. He further submits that as per the pahani furnished by the respondents under RTI Act for the year 1955-56, the entire land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13-34 gts in Sy.No.179 was in the names of Asoda Bondaiah, Rajaiah etc., for the year 1956-57 and the names of Asoda Bondaiah, Chevula Rajaiah for the year 1957-58 and as such the land in Sy.No.179 is shown as private patta land as per the entries in the Sethwar and the revenue records 1954-55 Khasra Pahani, the subject lands are private lands and the impugned order is contrary to the entries in the revenue records and the reports submitted by the Tahsildar and RDO are under the guise of orders of the Government with an intention to usurp the lands of the petitioners.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the subject lands are in possession of the petitioners since 1954 onwards to till date and if the lands are being shown from 1954 as Government lands, the assignment was made in the year 1954 as on that date there was no assignment policy except the land will be allotted to the landless poor persons by following the Laoni Rules, 1950 and there was no such prohibition in the Laoni Rules and for the first time, the revised assignment policy came into force under G.O.Ms.No.1406 Revenue dated 25.07.1958. He submits that the respondents ought to have seen that the subject land was made into Kharij Khata prior to 1954 and the revenue tax was exempted and they themselves have continued the names of the petitioners in the revenue records. The respondents have issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds and continuing the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and also extended the financial benefit under ‘Rythu Bandhu” in their favour and the petitioners are continuing in possession and enjoyment since more than 70 to 80 years.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners never claimed that the subject lands are assigned lands and in fact the subject lands are being enjoyed by their ancestors in the capacity of the pattadars. If the land in Sy.No.179 is Government (Khariz Khata) land, the classification of the subject land is patta land and if the land holder failed to pay the revenue tax, the concerned land can be made by the Government under the caption of Khariz Katha, but the respondents have not produced any material to show how the land in Sy.No.179 was made into Khariz Katha and more so, the respondents have admitted that the forefathers of the petitioners were in possession of the subject lands as possessors in record of Sethwar as well as in Khasra Pahani, but the reasons best known to them the record is not available. As such, the forefathers of the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands and their names were continued more than seven (7) decades and they have paid the revenue tax in the year 1954 and as such, the petitioners are not encroachers of the subject lands.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the ancestors of the petitioners have never relinquished their right over the subject land and in fact they are in possession and enjoyment since seven decades and in the Sethwar, their forefathers names were shown as possessors and the petitioners are continuing till date and the respondents have never raised any objection with regard to possession of the petitioners and requested to allow the writ petition by directing the respondents to issue No objection Certificate in favour of the petitioners.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter submits that the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13-34 gts in Sy.No.179 is Government land i.e., Kharij Khatha. In the pahanies for the years 1955-58 to 1966-67, 1974-75, 1976-77, 1978-79, the names of Asoda Bondaiah, Rajaiah, Mamidi Mondaiah, Asoda Mondaiah etc, were recorded in the enjoyer’s column which reveals that they were not the pattedars of the land during the said period. The names of Asoda Mallaiah for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac:2-14 gts, Mamidi Rajaiah for the land admeasuring to an extent Ac:2-12 gts, Mamidi Mallaiah S/o.Laxmaiah for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac:2-12 gts, Mamidi Mallaiah S/o.Mondaiah for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-12 gts, Chevula Pochaiah for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac:2-12 gts and Sunke Mallaiah for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-12 gts were shown as pattedars of the land in the pahanies from the year 1980-81 onwards and their names were shown as pattadars/owners of the land in Holding Register (Village Account No.4) for the year 1980-81. She further submits that for the assigned lands, pattadar passbooks are being issued and also getting benefit under the scheme of ‘Rythu Bandhu’ however, such assigned lands cannot transfer to others as the assignees or their legal heirs can enjoy the assigned lands.

10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue further submits that the petitioners are claiming to be assignees from the year 1955-56 onwards based on the entry of the names of Asoda Bondaiah and others as encroachers/enjoyers of the land and as per the said entry, they were not pattadars of the land up to the year 1979-80. As per G.O.Ms.No.1406 Revenue dated 25.07.1958 and G.O.Ms.No.1610 Revenue dated 19.09.1963, the assigned lands may be mortgaged to the Government or to a Co- operative Society recognized by the Government for obtaining loans for development of the land and the petitioners have option of borrowing loan from the Banks for development of the land in Sy.No.179. She further submits that the petitioners were not pattedars of the land up to the year 1980-81 from which the land in Sy.No.179 was recorded as patta in the name of Asoda Mallaiah and others and the petitioners have not filed any record showing that their ancestors were assigned the Government land in Sy.No.179 prior to the year 1958 and successions were granted in their favour.

11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue further submits that the entry in B-Memorandum of Faisla Patti for the year 1978-79 clearly establishes that the ancestors of the petitioners were encroachers of the said land but not pattadars as on that date and they have not filed any documentary evidence that their ancestors were assigned the land Laoni Rules prior to 1950 and supplementary sethwars were issued in favour of their ancestors for the land in Sy.No.179. However, the names of the ancestors i.e., Asoda Mallaiah and others were recorded as pattadars of the land from the year 1980-81 onwards and subsequently the petitioners and their ancestors were issued pattadar passbooks/title deeds for the land in Sy.No.179. She submits that though the petitioners/their ancestors are landless poor persons and they have been issued assignment pattas under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1406 Revenue dated 25.07.1958, No objection Certificate for transfer of assigned lands cannot be issued as the assigned lands are heritable but not alienable.

12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue further submits that as per Sethwar and Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, the land in Sy.Nos.179 is Government land and before 1954-55, if the pattadars have failed to make payment of land revenue or some other reasons, the pattadars have willfully relinquished for their patta lands and such lands have been taken by the Government and they become as Kharij Khata. The respondents have acted as per the Assignment Rules in force, but there was no intention to issue any contrary orders against the petitioners. She further submits that the Government land in Sy.No.179 situated at Kothapally Village, Thimmapur Mandal has not been assigned prior to 1958 and if the said Government lands have been assigned as per G.O.Ms.No.1406 Revenue dated 25.07.1958, the same cannot be transferred under the provisions of Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

13. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are questioning the impugned proceedings No.E3/2966/2019 dated 17.05.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 in treating their lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13-34 gts in Sy.Nos.179/1 to 179/6 situated at Kothapalli Village, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District as assigned lands granted in their favour and prohibited from transfer to the third parties and also denying the issuance of NOC to the petitioners over the subject lands for transfer of the properties to the third parties as illegal and arbitrary.

14. The contention of the petitioners is that their forefathers and the petitioners are in possession of the suit schedule properties with different extents respectively from the year 1954 onwards and stated that the names of the forefathers of the petitioners were recorded as enjoyers from 1954-55 onwards and the petitioners never claimed the subject lands as assigned lands and the competent authority has issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour and they are getting Ryothu Bandu and these lands are not assigned lands.

15. The further contention of the petitioners is that the respondents have only mentioned that the land situated in Sy.No.179 as ‘Kharij Khata’ in the year 1954-55 and they themselves admitted that the forefathers of the petitioners were in possession of the subject lands as possessors in record of Sethwar as well as in Khasra Pahani, but the reasons best known to them the record is not available.

16. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac:13-34 gts in Sy.No.179 is Government land i.e., Kharij Khatha. In the pahanies for the years 1955-58 to 1966-67, 1974-75, 1976- 77 and 1978-79, the names of Asoda Bondaiah, Rajaiah, Mamidi Mondaiah, Asoda Mondaiah etc., were recorded in the enjoyer’s column which reveals that they were not the pattadars of the land during the said period.

17. The other contention of the respondents is that the petitioners’ names were shown as pattadars from the year 1980-81 onwards and the assignment was granted to the petitioners in the year 1980-81 and as per the assignment conditions, the petitioners are not eligible to transfer the properties to the third parties.

18. In fact, there is no dispute with regard to the names of the forefathers of the petitioners and the names of the petitioners are continued in the revenue records from 1954- 55 in the ‘enjoyer’ column and subsequently ‘pattadar’ column. Now the contention of the respondents is that the petitioners are assignees of the Government land, but failed to file any document to show the date of assignment. The respondents have failed to file the assignment pattas granted to the forefathers of the petitioners as per G.O.Ms.No.1406 Revenue dated 25.07.1958 and G.O.Ms. No.1610 Revenue dated 19.09.1963. If there is any document to show that the assignment was granted to the forefathers of the petitioners and there is a condition not to alienate the properties, the contention of the respondents can be acceptable, but the respondents have failed to file any document to show that either the assignment was granted to the forefathers of the petitioners from 1954-55 or 1980-81 when the names of the petitioners were shown as pattadars.

19. Without there being any assignment proceedings, now the respondent authorities are stating that the suit schedule property was assigned to the petitioners and they cannot transfer the property to the third parties. The main contention of the respondents is that the pahani adangals for the year, 1954-55 show that the lands are ‘Kharij Khata, but failed to show any document that the suit schedule property was assigned to the forefathers of the petitioners or the petitioners.

20. Earlier, this Court in K. Ramu vs. Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer (2023 SCC OnLine TS 4530) held in para Nos.20 and 23 as under;

               “20. In Sunkara Sujana v. District Collector (supra 1) this court held as follows:

               “Even assuming that the land was originally assigned under laoni patta, unless the said patta contains a condition prohibiting alienation, the assignee under such patta is entitled to sell the land”. Further held that “Having allowed the parties to sell the subject property from time to time, the respondents have acquiesced in raising the plea that the subject land belongs to the government at this length of time”.

               In the instant case also the respondents are failed to produce any assignment patta under Laoni Rules and without record basing on assumption and presumption passed the impugned orders.

               23. The provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No. 9 of 1977) will no application to the alienation of pattas/occupancy rights granted under Laoni Rules or under Revised Assignment Policy issued in G.O.Ms. No. 1406 dated 25.07.1958. Since the said Act prohibits transfer of assigned land which is defined under Section 2(1). Laoni Rules as well as the rules issued under G.O.Ms. No. 1406 dated 25.07.1958 deal with two types of assignments, i.e., assignment on payment of market value and assignment to the landless poor persons. Without any record, the respondents cannot declare that the subject lands are assigned lands and the same is in violation of the A.P Assigned Land (POT) Act, 1977 and also the same is contrary to the available records. If the land assigned to landless poor persons under Laoni Rules, there must be condition of non-alienation as per settled law, otherwise it cannot be declared as void transaction. In the instant case, the respondents failed to produce any document or any record with regard to the assignment.”

21. In Syed Jaffar Ahmed vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad (2025 SCC OnLine TS 174), this Court in similar grounds held that mere mentioning of ‘Kharij Khata’ in the revenue records cannot be treated as Government land and held at para Nos.33, 34 and 36 as under;

               “33. A bare reading of the explanation given on the term of Kharij Khatha it is to be noted that merely declaring the subject land as Kharij Khatha for various reasons cannot be deemed as the Government land more so when the subject land earlier was treated as the patta land and khatha has already been allotted.

               34. It is significant to note here that the process of changing the patta land to that of the (Kharij Khatha) Government land must be under a prescribed procedure contemplated under the Statute. If the Government has any right or interest over the subject land, their remedy is to file a civil suit seeking declaration of their title, but they cannot simply include the lands in the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and deny the rights of the Pattadar.

               36. It is not out of place to quote here that it is well settled law that the entries in the revenue records do not confer any title. They are not conclusive and only have presumptory value. Similar aspect has been dealt with by this Court in W.P. No.12372 of 2019 as narrated hereinabove. The dispute in the present case is with regard to entry “Kharij Khata Sarkari.”. Except entry in the pahanis for the years 1954-55, 1963-64 showing the subject land as Kharij Khata Sarkari, no document has been produced by the respondents to show that the said entry was made on the strength of any proceedings. Kharij Khata means deletion of account. It is for the respondents to, prima facie, show that the declaration of Kharij Khata was on the basis of some proceedings or orders, which they failed to substantiate. Even as per the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, it is stated that the subject land was recorded in the Khasra Pahani as Kharij Khatha (Sarkari), which denotes that the subject land originally belongs to the Pattadars and was accounted for remittance of revenue cist.”

22. The above findings of the orders squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. In the instant case also, basing on mentioning of ‘Kharij Khata’ in the entries in the pahani for the year 1955-58, the respondents are claiming that it is Government land and the lands were assigned to the forefathers of the petitioners, but failed to file any proceedings to that effect. In view of the same, the suit schedule properties cannot be prohibited from transfer by the petitioners without there being any valid assignment proceedings and also any clause for non-alienation.

23. With the above findings, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings No.E3/2966/209 dated 17.05.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 by directing the respondent authorities to delist the suit schedule property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13-34 gts situated in Sy.Nos.179/1 to 179/6 situated at Kothapalli Village, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District from the Government lands and declaring that the petitioners are entitled to alienate or transfer the suit schedule properties to the third parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

24. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.