Common Order

1. Writ Petition No.10920 of 2020 is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring Form-I notice bearing No.B/361/2019, dated 10.07.2020, issued by respondent No.4, at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to 3, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Writ Petition No.11110 of 2020 is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring Form-II notice bearing No.B/361/2019, dated 10.07.2020, issued by respondent No.4, at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to 3, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Writ Petition No.11897 of 2020 is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the order, vide proceedings No.B/77/2020, dated 09.07.2020, passed by respondent No.3, confirming the order, vide proceedings No.B/3854/2015, dated 07.01.2016, passed by the then Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal (presently Bachupally Mandal), Medchal District, as illegal, null and void and consequently, to the set aside the same.

4. Since the parties, subject matter and the issues involved in all the three Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by common order.

5. For convenience, Writ Petition No.11897 of 2020 is taken up as a lead case and the facts stated therein, which are almost similar in the other Writ Petitions, are narrated.

6. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel-on-record for the petitioners and learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents.

7. In nut-shell, the facts of the case, as averred in the affidavit, filed in support of Writ Petition No.11897 of 2020, are that the then Tahsildar of Quthbullapur Mandal (presently Bachupally Mandal), Medchal District, collected a sum of Rs.201.72 paise each from petitioner No.1 and fathers of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, being the upset value, and allotted an extent of Acs.4.18 guntas to each of them under Laoni Rules, 1950; that their names were mutated in the revenue records; that pahanies, pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to the said persons under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971; that after the demise of the said allottees, the said lands were inherited by petitioner Nos.2 to 10 from their fathers/grandfathers and the names of the petitioners were recorded as pattadars through Faisal Patti for the year 1960; that their names were also mutated in the revenue records and since then, the petitioners are owners and have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of their respective extents of lands, which is evident from the pahani and pattadar pass books.

               7.1. It is further averred that petitioner No.1, and one K.Chandra Reddy, during his life time, have sold certain extent of land to one P.T.Narayana Raju, Durga Reddy and V.V.D.Prasad, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.1668/1996, dated 22.03.1996 and the said persons in turn sold the land to an extent of Acs.2.00 to Vignan Vidyalaya Limited, which utilized the same for educational purposes; and that further, the legal heirs of the allottees-Chandra Reddy and Raji Reddy raised few structures during the period 1990.

               7.2. It is further averred that while the things stood thus, during the month of October, 2015, respondent No.4 along with revenue officials directed the petitioners and their cousins to vacate and hand over possession of the subject land consisting of Acs.11.14 guntas, failing which, threatened them with dire consequences, however, the petitioners, with the help of their well-wishers, were able to avert the same. Nevertheless, respondent No.4 issued Form-1 notice dated 23.11.2015 to the petitioners and the petitioners challenged the same by filing Writ Petition No.39984 of 2015 and this Court vide order dated 09.12.2015 directed respondent No.4 to consider the reply of the petitioners with reference to records and pass a reasoned order; and that pending consideration and passing of an appropriate order, respondent No.4 or his sub-ordinates were directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land; that in pursuance of the said orders, the Tahisldar passed order dated 07.01.2016, by concluding that petitioners are pattadars of the subject land, which they inherited from their fore-fathers, and they have been in possession/occupation of the subject land by cultivating the same and withdrew the Form-1 notice. The Tahsildar further observed that the Telangana Assignment (Prevention of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘POT Act, 1977’) is not applicable as pattas were granted under Laoni Rules, 1950, which confers absolute title with right to transfer the land.

               7.3. In the writ affidavit, the petitioners have given the detailed list of transactions, by way of registered sale deeds and gift deeds, executed by the petitioners/their fathers in favour of third parties and by virtue of which, the third parties are enjoying ownership of the same since more than three decades; and that developmental activities were going on the subject land.

               7.4. While so, respondent No.4 addressed letter dated 29.01.2020 to respondent No.3, directing to take up the subject matter as an appeal as per the POT Act, 1977, review the matter once again and to pass appropriate orders. It is further averred that respondent No.3, in purported compliance of the said letter, without considering the documents available with the petitioners and also ignoring the period of limitation, i.e., without a petition to condone delay of 1460 days, has taken up the appeal and has passed the impugned order, dated 09.07.2020, without following the provisions of POT Act, 1977, particularly, Section 4 thereof and as such, the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice, illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the Writ Petition.

8. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, wherein it is inter alia stated that originally, the subject land admeasuring Acs.13.14 guntas in Sy.No.325 of Nizampet Village, Bachupally Mandal was classified as ‘poramboku sarkari’ and the entries in the pahani continued as such till the year 1964-65; that as per Faisal Patti of the year 1964-65, Laoni Izafa was proposed by the then Tahsildar, Medchal Taluk in respect of the subject land along with lands in other survey numbers, but the same was not sanctioned by Nazim-E-Jamabandi, however, unauthorizedly, pahanies for the total extent of land in Sy.No.325 were issued to the alleged assignees- petitioner No.1, K.Chandra Reddy and K.Raja Reddy. It is further averred that the Tahsildar proposed Laoni Izafa for the subject land in the year 1965, whereas the challans filed by the petitioners towards the upset price of the land bears the date ‘24.02.1960’, which clearly shows that the same is a fraudulent document.

               8.1. It is further averred that as per G.O.Ms.No.1406 (Rev), dated 25.07.1958, all the assignments made under the revised assignment policy are heritable, but not alienable and only agricultural activities are permitted in such lands, and any violation thereof, attracts the provisions of the POT Act, 1977, in which event, the Government is entitled to resume the land. In the instant case, the subject land was assigned after the Revised assignment policy came into force, therefore, petitioners, by converting the assigned lands into HMDA layout and entering into agreement with third parties for development of the same, have violated the conditions of assignment and accordingly notices in Form-I and Form-II were issued to the alleged assignees/legal heirs of the assignees. It is further averred that later, Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, without properly verifying the records available in the office, passed an erroneous order dated 07.01.2016 holding that the provisions of the POT Act, 1977 are not applicable to the instant case and withdrawn the notices.

               8.2. It is further averred that as per Faisal Patti of Nizampet Village, a sum of Rs.201-72 paise was proposed Laoni Izafa to the total extent of Acs.84.02 guntas of lands situated in Sy.No.325 (subject land) and other survey numbers, but the assignees claim to have paid Rs.201-72 paise for each part of Acs.4-18 guntas in Sy.No.325, which shows that the claim of the assignees is based on fake and fabricated documents and further, even as per the faisal patti of Nizampet Village for the year 1964-65, no such payment was made by the assignees and hence, the claim of the assignees is a false claim. It is further averred that in Faisal Patti for the year 1960-61 of Nizampet Village, it was recorded that the assignees occupied government land unauthorisedly prior to granting of assignments against their occupied lands. It is further averred that the subject land is notified under Section 22-A of Stamps and Registration Act, prohibiting registration.

               8.3. It is further averred that respondent No.3 has taken into consideration all the aforesaid facts and on due verification of the records and the counter and the documents filed by the petitioners herein and after conducting hearing, passed the impugned order in accordance with law and as such, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that originally, the subject land which was classified as ‘poramboku’ was allotted to one Kolan Janga Reddy on payment of 16 times of the market value and the same is incorporated in Faisal patti of the year 1952-53, which shows that the land was allotted prior to coming into force of the new revised assignment policy in the year 1958; and that, subsequently, the subject lands were allotted under Laoni Rules, 1950, to petitioner No.1 and two others, on payment of Rs.201-72 each, being the then market value (Laoni Izafa), therefore, the provisions of the POT Act has no application to the subject lands. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the respondents have not placed on record any evidence to prove the stipulation of condition of non- alienability of the subject lands. He further submitted that contrary to the conditions stipulated in GO.Ms.No.1406, Revenue, dated 25.07.1958, a sum of Rs.201-72 paise each, being the then market value (laoni Izafa) of the subject lands, was collected from the petitioner No.1 and two others for allotment of the subject lands, which falsifies the contention of the respondents that the subject lands are ‘assigned lands’ within the meaning of POT Act, 1977 and therefore, the provisions of the POT Act has no application to the subject lands. He further submitted that to invoke the provisions of the POT Act, 1977, the respondents have to first establish that the subject lands are assigned lands and there is existence of condition of non-alienation in the original assignment deed and in the absence of the same, the revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under Section 3 or 4 of the POT Act and that in the present case, the respondents have failed to prove that the subject lands are assigned lands and there is existence of condition of non-alienation therein. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel relied upon the following judgments:-

               1. G.Satyanarayana Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (MANU/AP/0431/2014)

               2. Dasari Narayana Rao and another Vs. Deputy Collector & Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli (2010 (6) ALD 536)

               3. Sunkara Sujana Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others (2014 (2) ALT 1)

               4. Order dated 05.07.2018 passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.22810 of 2014 (G.Shankar Reddy Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimanagar and others).

               9.1. Learned senior counsel further contended that on earlier occasion, respondent No.4 has initiated proceedings for resumption of subject lands by invoking Section 4 of the POT Act, 1977 and issued Forms-I and II on 23.11.2025; that aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.3998 of 2015 and this Court vide order dated 09.12.2015 disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders and in pursuance thereof, respondent No.4, taking into consideration the relevant documents including the revenue records, pattadar passbooks, title deeds, etc., had come to conclusion that the provisions of the POT Act are not applicable and accordingly, withdrawn the resumption proceedings, vide order dated 07.01.2016, and as such, respondent No.3 lacks jurisdiction to again initiate the resumption proceedings, by way of treating the letter addressed by respondent No.4 as an appeal, that too, with an inordinate delay of 1,460 days, and ordering the resumption of the subject land. In support of the said submission, learned senior counsel relied upon the following judgments:-

               (1) Ponnala Narsing Rao Vs. Nallolla Pantaiah (AIR 1990 (SCW) 4692)

               (2) B.Adinarayana Murthy Vs. Collector, Anantapur (2000(1) ALD 168)

               (3) Thripuravalam Krishna Reddy Vs. Joint Collector (2009(1) ALD 248)

               (4) J.Sharradha (Smt) Vs. State of Telangana (2019(4) HLT 148)

               (5) Kishan Singh Vs. Special Commissioner (2007(4) ALD 686)

               (6) Letters sent from Plot No.338, Parvanth Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad Vs. Collector & District Magistrate (2008(5) ALT 313)

               (7) Joint Collector, R.R. District Vs. P.Harinath Reddy (2009 (4) ALT)

10. By contending as above, learned senior counsel finally submitted that in the present case, the respondents neither established that the subject lands are assigned lands nor the same were allotted subject to condition of non-alienation; and that, in fact, in the impugned order, it is specifically observed that the assignment deed is not traceable in the office. Therefore, in the absence of any material that the subject lands are assigned to the petitioners subject to condition of non-alienation, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 without jurisdiction and authority and as such, the same is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

11. Learned Special Government Pleader while reiterating the contents of the counter contended that the subject land was recorded as ‘poramboke sarkari’ and the same entries continued as such in the pahanies till the year 1964-65 and the Tahsildar, Medchal Taluk, proposed Laoni Izafa in respect of the subject land along with lands in other survey numbers in the year 1965, whereas the challans filed by the petitioners, in proof of payment of Rs.201-72 paise towards the upset price of the lands, bears the date ‘24.02.1960’, which shows that the same are fake and fraudulent documents. He further contended that the subject land is notified under Section 22-A of the Stamps and Registration Act prohibiting registration and therefore, the transactions entered into by the petitioners with third parties are void. He further submitted that respondent No.3, on perusal of the records, observed that the assignment was made after the Revised Assignment Policy came into force in the year 1958, which prohibits alienation of the assigned land, but, the petitioners have violated the conditions of assignment, and accordingly, vide the impugned order has rightly set aside the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 07.01.2026 and directed to take further action as per the provisions of the POT Act, 1977. He further submitted that the petitioners failed to make out any ground warranting interference of this Court with the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

12. Having regard to the pleadings and the contentions advanced by learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the following issues fall for consideration of this Court:-

               (1) Whether respondent No.3 is justified in ignoring the delay of 1,460 days in entertaining the appeal against the order passed by Tahsildar, dated 07.01.2016?

               (2) Whether respondent No.3 is empowered to take up the letter addressed by respondent No.4 as an appeal?

               (3) Whether resumption proceedings can be initiated without establishment that the subject lands are assigned lands?

Issue Nos.1 and 2:-

13. Insofar as the issue of delay is concerned, it is an admitted fact that respondent No.4 has earlier withdrawn the resumption proceedings, vide order dated 07.01.2016 and respondent No.3 issued fresh notice dated 22.05.2020 basing on the letter dated 22.01.2020 addressed by respondent No.4, which is after a lapse of 1,460 days. Section 4-A of the POT Act stipulates that an appeal against the order passed by the Tahsildar has to be preferred within a period of 90 days from the date of such order, whereas the letter which was taken up as appeal was after a lapse of 1,460 days from the date of order passed by the Tahsildar. Further, despite the specific objection taken by the petitioners in the appeal regarding the delay, respondent No.3 has ignored the same and did not consider the same, which is contrary to Section 4-A of the Act, 1972.

14. Here, it is necessary to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ponnala Narsing Rao’s case (cited supra), wherein while dealing with the provisions of the AP. Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Act, it was held that applications have to be moved within a reasonable time.

15. In B.Adinarayanamurthy’s case (cited supra), the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh while dealing with the issue of resumption of land, has held that authorities cannot exercise power of resumption after lapse of 34 years and the power cannot be extended beyond a reasonable period, in any event not later than five to six years.

16. In the case on hand, the petitioners claim to have been issued assignment pattas in the year 1960 and the then Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, has passed order dated 07.01.2016, withdrawing the notice issued in respect of the subject land under the provisions of the POT Act. As against the said order, the resumption proceedings were initiated by respondent No.3 in appeal in the year 2020, i.e., after a lapse of four years, which is contrary to Section 4-A of the POT Act.

17. Further, in view of the proposition laid down in B.Adinarayanamurthy’s case (cited supra), this Court is of the opinion that respondent No.3 cannot exercise power of resumption after a lapse of about 40 years from the date of issuance of assignment pattas.

18. Accordingly, this Court holds that respondent No.3, has erroneously taken up the letter addressed by respondent No.4 as an appeal and had even not considered the aspect of limitation despite the specific objection taken by the petitioners. This view of this Court is fortified by the judgment rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in D.Umarani Vs. District Collector and others (2015(4) ALD 572).

19. Issues Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly in favour of the petitioners.

Issue No.3:-

20. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners principally contended that to initiate the resumption proceedings, the revenue authorities have to establish that the subject lands are ‘assigned lands’ and the assignment is subject to condition of non-alienation.

21. As regards the said aspect, the learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners has relied upon the judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in G.Satyanarayana’s case (cited supra), Dasari Narayana Rao’s case (cited supra) and Sunkara Sujana’s case (cited supra). In the said judgments, it is held that unless the revenue authorities first establish with proper evidence that the land in question is assigned land within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the POT Act, 1977, and such assignment was subject to a condition of non-alienation, no proceedings for cancellation or resumption can be validly initiated merely on the basis of the revenue entries.

22. In the instant case, the specific case of the petitioners is that the subject land was allotted to them on payment of Rs.201-72 paise for an extent of Acs.4.18 guntas. In proof of the said stand, photostat copies of the challans were also produced before this Court. The respondents, except taking a stand that the subject land is assigned land and the said assignment is subject to condition of non-alienation, have failed to discharge the initial burden of proving their stand by producing relevant evidence in that regard to enable them to initiate resumption proceedings. In fact, in the impugned order, it is specifically observed that the assignment deed is not traceable in the office, therefore, in the absence of any material that the subject lands are assigned to the petitioners subject to condition of non-alienation, the impugned proceedings are without any jurisdiction and authority and therefore, the same are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside.

23. For the foregoing reasons, all the Writ Petitions are allowed and consequently, the impugned order dated 09.07.2020, in proceedings No.B/77/2020 passed by respondent No.3 and the notices in Forms-I & II, bearing No.B/361/2019, dated 10.07.2020, issued by respondent No.4, are declared as null and void and are, accordingly, set aside.

24. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.