WA/202/2010 of Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary Vs Mailarapu Jangaiah on 31 December 2021

1. ft/ailarapu Jangaiah, Sio. Papaiah

2. M. Swamy, S/o. Late Balaiah

3. Yadaiah, S/o. Late Balaiah

4. Ashok, S/o. late Kalwakaul Balaiah

5. lVirajagudem Yadaiah, S/o.M.lValkaiah

6. Shankaraiah, S/o. Yerenkaiah Veeraiah

7. lt/ailaram Yadaiah, S/o. Late Pedda Gangaiah

8. lV. Ra.iu, S/o Late Pedda Gangaiah

9. Bal Ram, S/o. Late Revella Achaiah

10. Narsimha, S/o. late Revella Achaiah

1 1 . Veeraswamy, S/o. Late Revella Chandraiah

12. Raju, Sio. late Revella Chandraiah

13. [t4ailaram Narsimha, S/o. Pedda Gandaiah

14. Gungurthi Gandaiah, S/o. G.Pochaiah

15. Gungurthi Padma Rao, S/o. Late G.Jangaiah

16. Balaiah, Sio. Iate Venkaiah

17, Chikati Lingamma, W/o. late C.Mallaiah

18. Chikati Narsimha, W/o. late C. l\4allaiah

19. Babu Rao, S/o. late C.lMallaiah

20. Nagaiah, S/o. late C. Mallaiah

21. Raju, S/o. late C.Yellaiah

22. ltA. Jai Raj, S/o. late Ir.4ailaram Venkataiah

23. Uppari Gopal, S/o. Late U. Gandaiah

24. Upar Ivluthyalu, S/o.late Sayanna

25. Uppari Veeraiah, S/o. late Narsimha

26. Laxmamma, W/o. Late lvlailaram Jangaiah

27. M. Narasimha, S/o. Late lvlylaram Gandaiah

28. M. Jangaiah, S/o. late l\,4ailaram Gandaiah

29. Yerpula Ramulu, S/o.late Gandaiah

30. Yerpula Narasimham, S/o. late Gandaiah

31. Dappu Ir4uthyalu, S/o.late Laxmaiah

32. Dappu Anjaiah, S/o. late Jangaiah

33. Jaganaiah, s/o. late Jangaiah34. Dappu Dan Raj, S/o. late Ramaiah

35. Anjaiah, S/o. Late Mirjagudem Venkataiah

36. Kdshnaiah, S/o. Late Mirjagudem Venkaiah37. Nagaiah, S/o. Late l\/irajagudem Venkaiah38.lt/ailaram Yadagiri, S/o. late Sukkaiah39.1r/. Narsimha, S/o. late Shankaraiah

40. G.Raju, S/o. Late I abaiah

4'1 . G. Swamy, S/o. Ve rkaiah

42. G. Venkataiah, S/c G. Jangaiah

43. Gudepu Swamy, S o. Sayanna

44. G.Suresh, S/o.late Narasimha

45. G.Raju, Sio. Sayar na(All are residents c Manchirevula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, ianga ReddyDistrict)46. Syed Latafat Huss rin Razvi, S/o. Syed Shah Tajamul Hussain Razvi R/o.23-2-442, Moghulpura, I lyderabad.

47. Mrs, Seyeda Nase :runissa Begum, W/o.Syed Najamuddin Khusro No.23-2-442,Moghulpura, Hyde abad.Moghulpura, Hyde abad.

(RRs 46 & 47 are i npleaded as per Court Order dated.21-10-2010 in WAMP NO.'146'1 of 2o1o)

.. RESPoNDENT.

LA. NO: 1 OF 201o(WAtv P. NO: 476 OF 2010)

Petition under Se< tion ['1 ]51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated ln theaffidavit filed in support c f the [petition, ]the High Court may be [pleased ]tc suspend theoperation of the order [jated ]05.02.2010 [passed ]in W.P.No. 363412007 [pending]disposal of the above wri appeal

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WAttr P. NO: 2596 OF 2011

Petition under Ser tion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed in support )f the petition, the High Court may be pleasec to permit thepetitioners /appellants h,,rien to construct the compound wall over the land given tothe Training Academy fo Gray Hounds, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal lA. NO: 1 OF 2012(WAl! P. NO: 547 OF 2012\

Petition under Ser lion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed in support )f the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct thepetitioner to file the Skel;h of the land allotted in favour of Greyhound:i Organizationin Sy. No. 393 to an extr nt of Ac. 326.83 gts of Manchirevula Village, FlajendranagarMandal, R.R. District anc pass

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201s(WAt! P. NO: 2561 OF 2A15

Petition under Ser tion ['151 ]CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed in support c f the petition, the High Court may be pleased hear the abovewrit appeal on out of turn basis, in the interest of justice lA NO: 1 OF 2021:

Between:

1Mailarapq Swamy, S/o. Late Balaiah, Rl/o. Mahchirevula Village,, R;rjendra NagarMandal, Ranga Re Jdy District.M. Jai Raj S/o. lat, lMqilaram Venkataiah R/o. Mahchirevula Villagr:, RajendraNagar Mandal, Rar ga Reddy District.3Uppari Mlthyalu, S b.late Sayanna R/o. Mahchirevula Village, [iajendra NagarIr/andal, Ranga Re idy District.49.. [Venkataiah ][9c ][G. ][Jangaiah, R/o. Mahchirevula Village, Rajenrira Nagar]Mandal, Ranga Re ldy District.RES Po N D ENr * o. :,i;?tl!X [oottoY]Mandal, Ranga Re Jdy District.M. Jai Raj S/o. lat, lMqilaram Venkataiah R/o. Mahchirevula Villagr:, RajendraNagar Mandal, Rar ga Reddy District.3Uppari Mlthyalu, S b.late Sayanna R/o. Mahchirevula Village, [iajendra NagarIr/andal, Ranga Re idy District.49.. [Venkataiah ][9c ][G. ][Jangaiah, R/o. Mahchirevula Village, Rajenrira Nagar]Mandal, Ranga Re ldy District.RES Po N D ENr * o. :,i;?tl!X [oottoY]

AND

The State of Telan lana, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Depanment, Secretariat,HyderabadHyderabad

The District Collect rr, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R.District

4. The lvlandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District

5. lvlailarapu Jangaiah, S/o. Papaiah

6. Yadaiah, S/o. Late Balaiah

7. Ashok, S/o. late Kalwakaul Balaiah

B. lVirajagudem Yadaiah, S/o. M.lVlalkaiah9. Shankaraiah, S/o. Yerenkaiah Veeraiah'10. Mlailaram Yadaiah, S/o. Late Pedda Gangaiah11. tr/. Raju, S/o Late Pedda Gangaiah12. Bal Ram, S/o. Late Revella Achaiah'13. Narsimha, S/o. late Revella Achaiah1 4. Veeraswamy, S/o. Late Revella Chandraiah15. Raju, S/o. late Revella Chandraiah'16.lt4ailaram Narsimha, S/o. Pedda Gandaiah17. Gungurthi Gandaiah, S/o. G.Pochaiah18. Gungurthi Padma Rao, S/o. Late G.Jangaiah19. Balaiah, S/o. late Venkaiah20. Chikati Lingamma, W/o. late C.lrilallaiah21 . Chikati Narsimha, W/o. late C. lvlallaiah22.Babu Rao, S/o. late C.lt/allaiah23. Nagaiah, S/o. late C. lt4allaiah24. Raju, S/o. late C,Yellaiah25. Uppari Gopal, S/o. Late U. Gandaiah26. Uppari Veeraiah, S/o. late Narsimha27. Laxmamma, W/o. Late lvlailaram Jangaiah28.It/. Narasimha, S/o. Late lt4ylaram Gandaiah29.1\/. Jangaiah, S/o. late [\/ailaram Gandaiah30. Yerpula Ramulu, S/o.late Gandaiah3l.Yerpula Narasimham, Sio. late Gandaiah32. Dappu [\/uthyalu, S/o.late Laxmaiah33. Dappu Anjaiah, S/o. late Jangaiah34. Jaganaiah, s/o. late Jangaiah35. Dappu Dan Raj, S/o. late Ramaiah36. Anjaiah, S/o. Late l\/irja g udem Venkataia h37. Krishnaiah, S/o. Late Mirjagudem Venkaiah38. Nagaiah, S/o. Late Mirajagudem Venkaiah39. Mailaram Yadagiri, S/o. late Sukkaiah40. M. Narsimha, S/o. late Shankaraiah41 . G.Raju, S/o. Late Babaiah42.G. Swamy, S/o. Venkaiah43.Gudepu Swamy, S/o. Sayanna44. G.Suresh, S/o.late Narasimha45. G.Raju, S/o. Sayanna(Respondents 5 to 45 are residents of lvlanchirevula Village, RajendranagarI\,4andal, Ranga Reddy District)46. Syed Latafat Hussain Razvi, S/o. Syed Shah Tajamul Hussain Razvi No.23-2-442, Moghulpura, Hyderabad.47. Mrs. Seyeda Naseerunissa Begum, Wio.Syed Najamuddin Khusro N o.23-2-442,l\/oghulpura, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite theaffidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite thehearing of the Writ Appeal No 202 ol 2010 and fix a date for hearing of the same.

Counsel for the Appellants: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 , 3 to 21 , 23, 25 to 41 & 43 to 45:

SRI AVINASH DESAI

Counsel for Appellant Nos.2,22,24 and 42: SRI VEDULA VENKATARAMANA,SENIOR COUNSEL FORSRI PERI PRABHAKAR

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 46 & 47: SRI T. SHARATH

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE'I HE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAANDTHE .ION'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

WRIT APPEAL No.2O2 OF 2O10

JUDGMENT: eer rc Hol'ble tLe ChleJ JLtsttce Saaish C/raldr( sharar.rl The pres rnt writ appeal is arising outoa::1 orderdated 05.02.2(,10 passed in W.P.No.3634 of 2007 by thelearned Single ludge.

Facts

2. The facts of the case reveal that the.Governrrent ofAndhra Prade:h sanctioned assignment of Acs.200.00 ofAstabal Kanck a of Manchirer.,urla village to the landlesspoor persons r nder the Special Laoni Ru1es, af-_er regularphodi on 28.1( .1953. The Laoni Rules are framr:d in 1950in exercise of towers conferred under Section 172'. of t]neAndhra Prade;h (Telangala Area) Land Revenue Act,1317F (hereaft ,r relerred to as 'Land Revenue Act, ,317F].The Laoni Rule s prohibits transfer of land by the assigneeswithout the sartction of the Collector. State]'he Government, hereafter, issued a Revised AssisnmentPo1ic1, on 31.0i . 1958 in exercise of powers confet-reci underSection I72 of .he Land Revenue Act, 1317F anci ap,ain thealienation was prohibited. The facts fr-trther reveal that it-rthe light of tl Le initial sanction dated 28.10. 19ir3, theCollector initiat :d proceedings ancl the Collector hacl sent aiist of twent) beneliciaries/landless harijans for the purpose of creating sub-division [in ][respect ][of ][Acs'200'00]sanctioned for assignment. [On ][07.11.1959, ][the ][Tahsildar]inspected the land [reporting ][that ][phodi ][(sub-division)]needs to be done for the [assignment ][of the land ][and ][in]turn, the Collector on 04.06.1960 [wrote ][to the ][Secretary,]Revenue Department [reporting ][that ][Acs. ][142.39 ][guntas ][is]fit for cultivation and [it ][has ][been ][phodied, ][which ][can ][be]assigned to harijans under [Special ][Laoni ][Rules. ][The]Revenue Divisional Officer on [16.08.1960 ][wrote ][to ][the]Tahsildar stating that [Acs. ][142.39 ][guntas ][can be ][assigned]under the Special Laoni [Rules ][while ][rest ][of ][the ][extent ][out]of Acs.326.28 guntas will [be ][auctioned. ][The ][State]Government, thereafter, issued [a ][G.O.Ms.No.ll22, ][dated]29.06.196 1 providing exhaustive [guidelines ][for ][assignment]and alienation of Government [lands overriding ][all ][previous]orders governing assignment [and ][alienation. ][The]Tahsildar, on 21.10.1961, made the [Phodi ][and ][issued]temporary patta certificates to [persons ][who ][have ][been ][in]possession and enjoyment of the same and [one ][such]certificate is on record at [page ][No.49 ][of the ][paper ][book]granting temporary patta to Mr. Mylarapu [Pedda]Gandaiah. The aforesaid certificate [makes ][it ][very ciear ][that]the grantee was not empowered to [transfer ][the ][occupancy]without the previous sanction of the Collector. [At ][this ][point]

of time, it is noteworthy to mention that in l.ho,se caseswhere the lan 1 was assigned by receiving consideration bythe State Gov :rnment, the right of transfer was, granted towhere the lan 1 was assigned by receiving consideration bythe State Gov :rnment, the right of transfer was, granted tothe assignees In the present case, the respondents in thervrit appeal \'ere granted temporary pattas free of costwithout charg ng any considerationrvrit appeal \'ere granted temporary pattas free of costwithout charg ng any consideration

3. The And rra Pradesh Assigned Lands (prohibition ofTransfers) Act 1977 (hereafter referred to as [,,A,ct ]No.9 of1977) catne ir to effect on 21.01.197T arrd Secrion 3(1) ofthe said Act p:ovides that any sa,le executed by a landlessfarmer in resl ect of an assigned land, before or zr-fter thecommencemer t of the Act, sha1l be void and Section 3(2)provides that no landless farmer shall transfer theassigned 1and.

4. It is agai r an undisputed fact that aii those persons,in whose fav< ur the assignment was done, executed aPower of Atto ney in favour of a builder, M.A.Baksh on14.08.1991 en.powering him to enter into an agreement tose11 in respec. of the property in question and later on23.10.1992, N.Jangaiah cancelled the General power ofAttorney (GPr.) granted in favour of M.A.Baksh. On27.1O.1992, cther respondents namely D.Shankarajah,D.Nagaiah, M.,iandaiah also cancelled the GpA. which rvas executed in favour [of ][M'A.Baksh. ][However, ][the ][fact]remains that M.A.Baksh [executed ][as ][many ][as ][seventy-one]sale deeds in respect [of ][the land, ][which is ][subject ][matter ][of]the present writ [petition. ][There ][was a ciear ][violation of ][the]terms and conditions [of ][the ][assignment ][order ][dated]21.1O.196 1 as the [land ][was ][sold ][without ][the ][permission of]the Collector. However, [on ][28.03'1994, the ][Collector ][issued]a show cause [notice ][for ][cancellation ][of ][assignment ][in]terms of the suo [molu ][revision ][powers ][under ][Section ][166-8]of the Land Revenue [Act, ][1317F. ][It ][was stated ][in ][the ][show]cause notice that [a][ large ][number ][of ][irregularities ][have]been committed [by ][the ][Subordinate ][Olficer ][while ][issuing]assignment orders

5. While all this [was ][going ][on, the ][Inspector ][General,]Special Security [Force ][submitted ][proposals ][for ][acquisition]of land in survey [Nos.393/l ][to ][393 ]l2O [along ][with ][other]lands for the [purpose ][of ][setting ][up of ][operational]and [training, along ][with ][residential]head,quarters accommodation and [the ][Revenue ][Divisional Officer, ][on]receipt of the [proposals, was asked ][to ][conduct ][an ][enquiry]and to [prepare ]a [Report ][for ][initiating ][Land ][Acquisition]The [Revenue ][Divisional Officer reported ][that]Proceedings. the land was assigned [to ][Scheduled ][Caste ][families ][and]'that the land was [fatlow ][on ][the ][spot ][and ][mostly ][unfit ][for]

cultivation. It is evident from the faizal patti 1961-62,Laoni Izafa wi s effected in lavour of the indivicuals basedon the certifi,:ates issued for temporary occupation andaccordingly th : names of the individuals r,vere irLco.:poratedin pahanis frcm 1962 onu,ards. The Collector eirrived at aconclusion th. Lt the assignment was il1ega1, irregular andliable to be cancelled as Form-G certificate 's/as fortemporary oc:upation and thereby implementzttion olFaisal Patti 1! 67-62 was i1legal. The assignment ought tohave been pr rcessed under Assignment Rules, 195g instead of Laot i Rules, 1950. The assignments were incontravention of ban orders of assignment issued inG.O.Ms.No.12l12, dated 29.06.196L. The Coilect.or alsoarrived at a c( nclusion that the land has not beetr put touse for cultivi tion and is fallow, thereby Rule 19 of theLaoni Rules I'as violated and the suo molu power wasexercised seek ng explanation from the assignees as; to whytheir assignmeet should not be cancelled.

6. Mailaram Jangaiah, being aggrieved by the issuanceof the show c Luse notice issued by the Collector, dated28.03.1994, challenged the proceedings before this Courtby fiiing the vrit petition, i.e., W.p.No.9106 ol 1994 and.this was the fir st writ petition in the matter. This Crturt, byorder dated 0:.05.1994, disposed of the sard writ petition directing the petitioner therein to submit explanation tothe show cause notice u.ithin a period of one week and thervrit petitioner Mailaram Jangiah submitted his rep1y,dated 06.05.1994. The District Revenue Officer.on15.09.1994, after considering the reply of MailaramJangaiah refused to interfere with the assignments whichtook place in 196 1 and held that the assignments werevalid in terms of the Laoni Rules.

7. The Collector, Ranga Reddy District .in exercise ofpowers conferred under Section 166-8 of the LandRevenue Act, 1317F passed Orders on 03.01.1995suspending the orders of the Tahsiidar, dated 21.10.1961(by which written permission to occupy land was grantedby the Tahsildar under the Laoni Rules) as well as theorder of the District Revenue Officer, dated 15.09.7994 onthe ground that Form 9(g) certificates under the LaoniRu1es, 1950 were issued in \967 despite theG.O.Ms.No. i 122, dated 29.06.1961, banning theassignments. The Coilector, Ranga Reddy District,thereafter on 31.07.1995 sought Government's ratificationof the Order dated 03.01.1995 and it r,'.as also brought [to]the notice of the State Gorrernment that the dispr,rted landr,,,as being developed lnto plots by Baksh Estate, orvned byM.A.Baksh, the GPA holder. The State Government [on]

09.10.1995 w ote to the District Collector bringrng it to thenotice of the Collector that the said order rvas passedwithout issuir g notice, hence it cannot be sustaitred. TheGovernment, therefore, decided to undertake suo moturevision unde' Section 166-C of the Land Revenue Act,notice of the Collector that the said order rvas passedwithout issuir g notice, hence it cannot be sustaitred. TheGovernment, therefore, decided to undertake suo moturevision unde' Section 166-C of the Land Revenue Act,1317F of the rrder passed by the District Revenu,,. Oflicerdated 15,O9 1994. The State Government initiateddated 15,O9 1994. The State Government initiatedproceedings a rd on 20.10. 1995 intimated the assignees toapproach theGovernment in suo motu revision sought toapproach theGovernment in suo motu revision sought tobe undertaker by it and finally, the Governnrent on24.O1.1996 ra,ified the Order dated 03.01.1995 paLssed bythe District Crllector, after considering the representationof the assign:es and directed the District Coilector to24.O1.1996 ra,ified the Order dated 03.01.1995 paLssed bythe District Crllector, after considering the representationof the assign:es and directed the District Coilector tocomplete the:nquiry and to pass a final order. At thisstage, the assi3nees [filed ][W.P.Nos.484 ]of 1995 and722t ofstage, the assi3nees [filed ][W.P.Nos.484 ]of 1995 and722t of1996 prayedfor issuance of writ of certiorari seekingseekingquashing of tie proceedings dated 24.O1.1996. l'he writpetitions wer: ailowed by a common order datedpetitions wer: ailowed by a common order dated01.09. 1997 ard a writ appeal was preferred agarnst theorder dated 0l.O9.1997 passed in W.P.No.722t of t996 byorder dated 0l.O9.1997 passed in W.P.No.722t of t996 bythe Governmert of Andhra Pradesh, i.e., W.A.No.1487 of1998. The wri. appeal was dismissed upholding the viewtaken in thewrit petition that the power af su.o moturevision couldrot have been exercised after threr: decades.revision couldrot have been exercised after threr: decades.

8. The GPA executed in favour ol [M.A.Baksh ][was]ultimately cancelled by all the assignees on [16.11'1998 ][as]well as by the lega1 representative of the [assignees. ][Again]on 05. 12.1998, some other GPAs were cancelled by [the]assignees and the legal representatives of the [assignees.]The Government of Andhra Pradesh filed W.A.No.24 [of]2000 against the Order passed in W.P.No.484 of [1995,]dated 01.09.1997 and the said writ appeal was [dismissed.]S.L.P., was preferred before the Honble Supreme [Court]against the order dated 14.09.1998 [passed ][in ][Writ ][Appeal]No.i487 of 1998. The Honble Supreme Court in [Civii]Appeal No.3033 of 2000, vide order dated 28.04.2000, afterdiscussir-rg the entire issues and after [giving ]lindings [on]certain issues granted leave and set aside the order [passed]in Writ Appeal on the ground that it was the [District]Collector who was supposed to consider the explanation [of]the assignees ar-rd pass an order and not the [District]Revenue Officer and the District Collector was directed [to]consider the explanation and to [pass ]an order. [The ][second]S.L.P. (C) No.10303 of 2000, [preferred ]against [the ][Order]passed in W.A.No.24 of 2000, was aiiowed in terms [of ][the]judgment passed on 28.O4.2000 in SLP (C) No.311 of 1999remanding the matter back to the District Coliector.

9. The Dist'ict Collector, Ranga Reddy in compliance tothe order pas ;ed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court irr SLP (C)No.31 1 ol 1! 99 issued notices to the resp(lnc.ents on\7.O8.2OO1 tr submit explanation and evidenct: in thelresh enquiry was taken up in the matter. A11 the assigneeson 28.01.200 submitted their explanations and the JointCollector pas ;ed an order of resumption on the groundthat the ass gnment was irregular and assignees hadexecuted a p( wer of attorney in favour of one A.N{.Baksh,who had conr erted the lands into plots and executed saledeeds. The o'der was passed by the Joint Coll:ctor on22.12.2OO1. T ee assignees/respondents being a,gglieved bythe Order of .he Joint Collector, preferred a u'rit petitionNo.4812 of 2)02 challenging the order dated 22.12.2001and the afore;aid u,rit petition rvas allou,ed on the: groundthat the Hon';1e Supreme Court has directed rhe DistrictCollector to I ass an order after remand and it rvas theDistrict Co11ec tor who ll,as supposed to pass an o;:der andthe matter wa; remanded to the District Collector to pass afresh order i fter issuing fresh notice. The Or,ler waspassed by thi, Court on 04.04.2002. The District [(lollector]has thereafte- vide order dated 10.05.2003 passedanorder of resu nption of land and relevant portior:r of thesame is repro( uced as under:- "The assignments said to have been made in terms ofLaoni Rules, 1950 after coming into force of the revisedassignment policy of 1958 is vitiated by law ar-rd does nothave any validity. ...

The Village of Manchirevula falls within the 1O miles beltarea wherein assignment is prohibited by G.O.Ms.No.1 122,dated 26.06.1961 since assignment made in 196 i shail bedeemed to be made in accordance with Rules in force. ...

Section 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition olTransfers) Act 1977 states that no landless poor shalltransler any assigned land and by entering into the GPAsaid provision stands violated. By entering into GPA, therewas intention on part of the assignees to sell the land andthey had received Rs.1 lakh for each assignee. ...

The lands have lost their nature as agricultural lands,therefore, they do not serve the purpose of cultivation forwhich they were originally assigned."therefore, they do not serve the purpose of cultivation forwhich they were originally assigned."

10. The assignees being aggrieved by the orders passedby the Collector preferred writ petitions, i.e., W.P.Nos.13165 and 23639 of 2003 and this Court has a11ou,ed thewrit petitions by an order dated 2 \.O4.2006. Anotherimportant aspect of the case is that while the litigation u,'asgoing on, possession of the entire land was handed over tothe Special Police Force (Greyhounds) on 03.06.2003 b1,duly drawing panchanamas and Academy/Fire Rangingand other facilities have been developed by greyhounds,which is an elite armed force to combat naxalite and otherterrorists. The assignees, as they were aggrieved by theobservation granting liberty to the Government lorcancellation ol assignment in violation of conditions, preferred Revi:w Petitions i.e., W.P.M.P.No.15642 of 2006in W.P.No.13155 of 2003 and the said review petition wasdismissed, me aning thereby the State was at a liberty tocancel the asr ignment in case of violation of assignmentc or-rdition s.

11. This Cor rt while allowing the W.p.Nos.13165 and23639 of 20C 3 has held that the alienation of iand incontravention of the Rules by execution of GpA cloes notsurvive in the ight of the GPA holder,s death and therefore,no cause surv. ved for exercise of suo motu power o1'review.It was also 1 eld that the assignment of land was incontravention tf the existing rul.es and the issue need notbe gone into r early after forty years as those Rules weresubsequently rLmended substituting some other RuLies andthat could no' have been a ground to exercise suo motureview. Howevtr, this Court granted liberty to the StateGovernment t ) cancel the assignment if there is anycontravention of the conditions of the assignment. Thereview was filt d only because liberty was grantec, to theState Governm 3nt to pass an order in case of contraventionof the conditio rs of the assignment order and it is again amatter of fac that seventy-one sale deeds have beenexecuted in re spect of the land in question bv tire GpAholder.

72, the appellant/State Government keeping in view theliberty granted in the matter vide Judgment dated21.O4.2006 passed in W.P,Nos.13165 and 23639 of 2003issued notices to the landholders as u,e11 as to thepurchasers ir-rforming them that the sale is impermissibleand void as thev are in contravention of Section 3(2) of theAct No.9 of 1977. The assignees submitted a reply on29.12.2006 and thereafter. the Mandal Revenue Olficerinitiated proceedings on 27 .O1 .2OO7 for resuming thelands. As already stated earlier, the notices were issued toal1 assignees as u,ell as to all purchasers and finally alorder was passed resuming the land in exercise of powersconferrecl under Section 4 of the Act No,9 of 1977. Theassignees again preferred a writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.3634of 2OO7 challenging the proceedings dated 27.O1.2OO7 andcontended before this Court that the sale deeds u,ereexecuted prior to the Judgment delivered inW.P.Nos.13165 and 23639 of 2003 as this Court hasalreadv decided violations committed i.e., sale of landu,ithout permission of the Collector. It was pleaded thatnotice dated 1 1.12.2006, which was issued in respect ofthe sale deeds was issued by the N4anda-l Revenue Olficerwho rvas not authorised bv the District Coilector to lssuesuch notice and the sale deeds referred in the notice do not reveal the da1 -- of sale, name of vendor or purcheiser andextent of land so1d. It was also contended that the power ofattorney was , ancelled on in October 2002, cancellation ofpower of att, )rney was published in the news paper,cancellation tc ok place before any sa_le was effected and thepower of attor tey hoider died on 26.O4.2006 and therefore,no cause of ac -ion survives for resuming the land.

13. A detaile I and exhaustive counter affidavit has beenliled by the l{andal Revenue Officer in W.p.No.3634 ol2OO7 and the luthorisation to the Mandal Revenue Officerhas been bro rght on record and the execution of saledeeds was al ro verified. The learned Single Jurige hasallowed the wit petition by an order dated 05.02.12010 onthe ground th lt the lls between the parties involved hasattained final ty in the earlier round of litigation i.e.,W.P.No.13165 of 2003 and batch and therefore, issuingnotice on the [',ery ]same grounds amounts to r€rs judicata.The learned Si rgle Judge has also set aside the order dated10.05.2003 on the ground that the assignment which wasmade forty ye€ rs ago could not have been looked ireto andthe allegation hat the petitioners were not cultivating theland and not ir possession also could not have been lookedinto as it has a-tained finality. It was also observed l.hatthc-' GPA holder wa r no more and the GpA was not in ex:.stence.

The learned Single Judge though [liberty ][was ][granted ][to ][the]authorities to pass a fresh order [in ][case ][of ][any]contravention in respect of the assignment [order has ][given]an interpretation to the observation [of the ][learned ][Single]Judge that contravention means [future ][contravention ][and]therefore, the writ [petition ][deserves ][to ][be ][a-11owed. ][The]learned Single Judge linally allowed [the ][writ ][petition ][and]set aside the proceedings dated [27.O1.2OO7. ][The ][relevant]portion of the Order passed by the iearned Single [Judge ][is]reproduced as [u ]ttder:- "l have given my [earnest ][consideration ][lo ][the]respective submissions made by the [learned ][counsel]appearing on either side and [perused ][the ][material ][made]availabie on record.

As could be seen from the [material ][made available,]ultimately, the show-cause [notice issued ][on ][28 ]'3.1994and the orders [passed ]in [pursuance ][to ][the ][said ][show-]cause notice i.e. proceedings [in ][File ][No.El2237 ]l02 [dated]10.5.2003 have attained finalitv [in ][view ][of ][disposal ][of]W.P.Nos.13165 of 2003,23269 [of 2003 ][and ][C'C. ][163 of]2OO4 order dated [21.4.2006. Therefore, ][the]by an contention of the learned [senior counsel appearing ][for]the petitioner that the lis [between ][the ][parties ][and ][lhe]issues involved therein [have ][attained ][finality ][in ][the]earlier litigation i.e. [W.P. ][No. ][13165 ][of 2003 ][and ][batch]and, therefore, the [question ][of ][again ][issuing ][notice ][on]the very same [grounds ][amounts ][to ][res ][judicata, ][cannot]be said to be far from [truth. ][ln ][this ][regard, ][it ][is]necessary to notice [paragraphs ]ll, [12, 13, 14, ][15 ][and]17 of the order passed in [W.P. ][No. ][13165 ][of ][2003 ][and]batch, which read as follows:

"The facts which are not in dispute arethatthe petitioners and the predecessors ininter'st have been in possession ar-rd enjoymentof tle lands right from the year 1953. Theirthatthe petitioners and the predecessors ininter'st have been in possession ar-rd enjoymentof tle lands right from the year 1953. Theirpossssion came to be recognized and orders ofassitrment came to be issued on 21.10.1961.The)istrict Revenue Officer exercising powersundr- section 166-8 sought to cancel tht:assigrments on two grounds by issuing a sholv-CAUSnotice. The two grounds are: firstlv, aJterassitrment came to be issued on 21.10.1961.The)istrict Revenue Officer exercising powersundr- section 166-8 sought to cancel tht:assigrments on two grounds by issuing a sholv-CAUSnotice. The two grounds are: firstlv, aJterintroluction of Assignment Rules, 1958, tht:LaonRules, 1950 became inoperative an<1therebre the assignments made under the ruleriwhicr were not in exercise are invalid andSE CO]dly, the assignees resorted to alienatingSE CO]dly, the assignees resorted to alienatingthelands contrary to the terms of theassigrment. For the sake of brevity, i ma.,,repr(luce the operative portion of the show-CAUSnotice, and it is thus:

"ln view of the abol,eirregularities committed bl theSubordinate Officer. the matter takenot_ sLo rlolu rerrsion under se(tlur,s166 B ol A.P (T.Al L.R. Acr, 1317 F.Therefore, Sir Mailarap Mallaiah sioYellaiah r/ o Manchirevula is calledupon to explain the reasons lvhy thealleged permission granted fortemporary occupation of Governmentland and subsequentlv implemented inFaisalpatti, should not be cancelledand their names should not be deletedfrom the village pahanies lor the periodfrom 1963-64 to til1 date, within 15days from the date of receipt of thenotice, Failure to offer any explanationwould tantamount acceptance of theabove mentioned irregularities and itwould be concluded that the aliegedassignment is irregular, illegal and incontrary with the rules then existedand orders will be passed to cancei thealleged assignment and for deleting thenames from the pahanies'.

Undisputedly, the lands came to beassigred to the assignees by virtue of theirbeingin possession of the lands and thenam(s of the assignees have beenimpltmented in the revenue records throughFaisaPatti for the year L96L-62 and theirnam(s have been brought in the revenuerecolls and continued as pattadars. 11 can besard,,ithout an_r, icar of contraciiction that tl-re1ar-r d shave been in possession of thePetitl,ners/their prcdecessors in rnteresr crrer a period of 4O years prior to the issuance [of ][show]cause notice daled 28.3.1994.

The question that falls for consideration [is]whether after a lapse of 40 [yeaJs ][the ][District]Revenue Officer is iustified in [invoking ][suo ][motu]revislon with the sole object of cancelling [the]assignments which came to be [given ]effect in theyeat 1961-62.

The principal ground on whichassignments sought to be cancelled [by]invoking the review powers under section166-8 of the Act is execution of GPA [by ][the]in favour of the [predecessor ][in]assignees interest. As on this day, the GPA [holder ][is]not alive and even if atry [power ]of attorneyexists, it ceases with his death. Therefore, [no]cause survives for the District RevenueOfficer to take suo motu review, The otherquestion is whether the assignments made infavour of the petltioners and [their]predecessor in interest is contrary to theRules then in existence. That [issue ][is ][not]required to be examined after a [lapse ][of]nearly 4O years. The Laoni [patta ]certificatescame to be issued in accordance with [the]provisions of Laoni Rules, 1950. Merelybecause those Rules came to be [ar:rended by]substituting some olher rules cannot be [a]ground to exercise suo motu review bv theDistriit Revenue Officer or the District [Collector]under Section 166-B of the [Act.]

In view of the above discussion, [I ][hr-rd ][that]the show cause notice [issued ][by the ][District]Revenue Officer, R.R. District is [not ][legal ][and]proper. When once lhe show cause notice [is ][set]aside, the basis for [passing ][the ][order ][impugned]in the writ petitions by the Joint [Collector]cannot be said to be well founded, [Before ][parting]the case, I deem it appropriate to [observe ][that ][if]

there is any [contravention ][of the ][conditions]impos:d in the [assignment ][order, ][the]Gover lment rs [a]ways ][at ][libedy ][to ][cancel ][the]sarne n accordance [with ][the provisions ][of ][1aw"']

Frorr the above, [it is ][seen ][that ][the ][very ][shcw-]cause notir e [issued ][on ][28.3.1994 was ][found ][to ][be ][not]legal and :roper and, [therefore, ][the ][impugned ][order]therein dat:d 10.5.2003 [was ][set ][aside ][after having found]that as on the [date ][the ][G.P.A. ][Holder was ][not ][allve ][and]even if anl [power ][of ][attorney exists, ][it ][ceased ][wrth ][his]death and therefore, [no ][cause survives ][for ][I)ist;-ict]Revenue C lficer to take [suo ][motu ][revie\ ]" [lt ][rl ][ais ][alsrr]observed hat the [other ][question ][that ][ivhether ][the]assignmen, made in [favour ][of ][the ][petitioners ][or ][tlLeir]predecessc rs in interest is contrary [to ][the ][Rules ][then ][in]existence, s not [required to ][be ][examined ][after ][a ][laps': ][of]nearly 40 [rears. ]The [Laoni ][patta ][certificates ][came ][tc ][be]issued in i ccordance [with ][the ][provisions ][of ][Laoni ][Rules,]1950. Mer:ly because [those Rules came ][to ][be ][amended]by substit rting some [other rules, ][it ][cannot ][be ][a ][ground]to exercis ) suo motu [review ][by the ][District]RevenueOlficer or the District [Collector ][under ]1tr6- Il olthe Act.

Thu:, the allegations [that ][the ][petitioners ][$ere ][not]cultivatinl the Iand [or ][they were ][not ][in ][possession ][oi ][the]subject ia rd and the [G.P.A. Holder was ][trying ][to ][dispose]ol the lan I etc., were [a1l ][considered ][in ][W.P. ][No ][13165 of]2003 ant the orders [passed ][thereon have ][attained]finality. \ hat the learned [Judge ][observed ][was, ][if ][therc ][is]any cont avention o[ [the ][conditions imposed ][in ][the]assignme lt order, the [Government ][is ][always ][at ][liber.-y ][to]cancel th I same in [accordance ][with ][the ][provislon ][s ][of]law. In fe ct, against [these obsen'ations, ][the ][pet ][itioners]have filec Review WPMP No [15642 ][of 2006 ][in ][W ][P ][No]13165 of 2OO3 and [on ][7 7 ][2006, ][this ][Court ][passeci the]loilowing rrder:

"Heard learned senior counsel appearingfor the review petitioners [and ][learned]Government Pleader [appearing ][on ][behalf ][of]respondents.

This review [petition ][has ][been ][filed ][for]deletion of the clause [whereby ][liberty has ][been]given to the Government to cancel the [same ][in]accordance with the [provisions ][of law, ][if ][there]are arry contraventions of [the ][conditions]imposed in the assigned order, Learned senior counsel [appearing ][on]beha-lf of the [petitioners ][submits ][that ][since ][the]Assignment was under [Laoni Rules, ][1950, ][the]question of invoking any other [provisions of ][law]for cancellation of [tl-re ][assignment ][is ][not ][proper]ar-rd Ll-re reforc, the [obsen'allon ][made ][in ][the ][writ]petition needs to be deleted. In [support of ][his]submission, reliance [has ][been placed ][on ][the]judgment of this Court in G.V.K.Rama [ao ][v']Bakeite Hylam Employees [Co-op ][House]Builcling Socie ty, Hyderabad [(1997 ][(4) ALT ][304)]and Shyam Sunder v. [Govt. ][of ][A ][P. ][Revenue](Assignment) Department [(2001 ][(6) ][ALT ][128.]

The observation made [in ][the ][last ][but ][two]paragraphs of the writ [petition ][reads as follows:]"ln view of the [above]dlscussion, I find that [the ][show ][cause]notice issued by the [District ][Revenue]Officer, R.R. District [is ][not ][legal ][and]proper. When once the show [cause]notice is set aside, [the ][basis ][for]passing the order [impugned ][in ][the ][writ]petitions by the Joint Collector [cannot]be said to be [well ][founded. ][Belore]parting the case, I deem it [appropriate]to observe that if [lhere is ][anY]contravention of [the ]conditionsimposed in the assignment [order, ][the]Government is [alwaYs ][at ][liberty ][to]cancel the same [il.t ][accordance ][with]the provisions [of ][law".]

What is stated in the above [paragraph ][is]that in case of contravention [of the ][conditions]rmposed in the [assignment ][order, ][the]

Govrrnment is a.l.ways at liberty to initiatenece;sary proceedings. If the contention of thelearred Senior Counsel is accepted, it wouldfetteon the powers of the Government to cancellheand in case the land is not used for thepur!rse for which it was assigned,pur!rse for which it was assigned, I do not se any valid ground to reviervthe )rder passed in W.P. No. 13165 of 2003date I 21.4.2006. Accordrngly, this reviervpetit on is dismissed".

Thelearned Judge earlier observed that this willnot preclule the authorities from taking action. :f tLLereis any cortravention of the conditions imposed in theis any cortravention of the conditions imposed in theassignmer: patta. This must be deemed as, "if ,tnyfuture con-ravention is made and not otherwise". All thegrounds or which the earlier litigation attained linalityare beingraised again by way of issuing notir:e andpassing firLal orders, which are impugned in this rvritpetition, (n the very same grounds. Therefore, therespondens have no authority under the law to rake upthe issueswhich are already settled. Issuance of anyfurther noice as to canceilation of assignment on thevery samec1d cause of action does not survive au.rd it isaffront inhe face of the order passed by this Courr inW.P. No.3165 of 2003. In none of the proceedingsfuture con-ravention is made and not otherwise". All thegrounds or which the earlier litigation attained linalityare beingraised again by way of issuing notir:e andpassing firLal orders, which are impugned in this rvritpetition, (n the very same grounds. Therefore, therespondens have no authority under the law to rake upthe issueswhich are already settled. Issuance of anyfurther noice as to canceilation of assignment on thevery samec1d cause of action does not survive au.rd it isaffront inhe face of the order passed by this Courr inW.P. No.3165 of 2003. In none of the proceedingsissued aftr lhe order in W.P. No, 13165 of 2OO3 ispassed, nrfiesh cause of action has been citr:d torbrought tothe notice ol this Court. Here, it is apt I o rr:I'erthe decisln of the Supreme Court in Forwardbrought tothe notice ol this Court. Here, it is apt I o rr:I'erthe decisln of the Supreme Court in ForwardConstructon Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri(ArR 1986iC 39 1), r,"'herein it is held:

"ln view of S. 1 1, Expln.lV it could not besard hat the earlier judgment would not operateas re; judicata as one of the grounds taken ir-the s rbsequent petition was conspicuous by rtsabser ce in the eariier perition. An adjudicatioris cor clusive and final not onlv as to the actual matter deLcrmined but as to [every ][other ][matter]which the parties miSht and [ught ][to ][have]litigated and have had it decided [as ][incidental ][to]or essentrally connected [with ][the ][subject matter]of the litigation and every [matter ][coming ][within]the legitimate [pun,iew ]of the [original action ][both]in respect of lhe matters of claim [or ][defence"']

Further, in P.K. Vijayan [v. ][Kamalakshi ][Amma]

(AIR 1994 SC 2145), the Supreme [Court ][held:]

"lt is a sheer abuse [of the ][process ][of ][the]Court to raise at each successive [stages ][different]pleas to protract the proceedings or [to ][drive ][the]party to multiplicity of proceedings. [It ][would ][be]fair and [just ]that the [padies ][to raise ][all ][available]relevant pleas in the suits [or ][the ][proceedings]when the action is initiated [ar1d ][the ][omission]thereof does constitute [constructive ][res ][judicata]to prevent raising of the [same ][at ][a ][later point ][of]time thereby it must [be ][deemed ][that ][they ][are]waived".

It. may not be out of [place ][to mention ][here ][that ][the]Laoni Rr-rles have come [into ][force ][in ][1950, ][under ][the]Government of Hyderabad. [The ][revised ][Assignment]Rules were introduced in [1958 ][in ][the ][State ][of ][A ][P']Strictly speaking, the [Assignment ][Rules, ][1958 have ][no]application to the [case ][of ][th€ ][petitioners, ][since ][the]possession of the petitioners from [the ][year ][1940 ][is ][not]denied and the assignment [order ][was ][made ][by ][the]Government of [Hyderabad ][in ][the ][year ][1953 ][and, ][alter]completion of the [process ]at [various levels ][the]assignment was [completed ][in ][the ][year ][1961 ][for ][the]purpose of Phodi etc. Thus, [the Assignment ][Rules, ][1958]cannot be said to [be ][applicable ][in ][case ][of ][the petitioners']Further, this Court in a [reported ][decision ][in ][Letter]taken up as writ [petition ][v' ][Collector ][& ][District]Magistrate 2OO8 [(5) ][ALT ][313 ][(D.B) ][held ][that ][the]Assignment Rules, 1958, [have ][no ][application ][to ][the]

assignmer ts made prior to 1958 and no suchassignmer t can be cancelled basing on 1958 Ruies.

Thur, the contentions of the learned SpecialGovernmert Pleader representing the learned Advot:ateGeneral tlat the assignment itsell was irregular and theassignmert conditions were violated in vier.l, of issuanceof G.P.A. ir favour of one Allabaksh and since tht: en tirearea is ubanized, it does not serve the purpose forrvhich it r,,as allotted and it is only heredrtable and notalienable tnd no permissions for the sales were obtainedetc. , u.,ereall irrelevant since those issues were alreadyattained fi-rality in the earlier proceedings.- Further, noissue wasleft which arises for consideration in this,rritpetition, irthe previous proceedings.

Furt ter, from the facts noticed above, it is ctearthat the e; Ltire cause of action was sought to be dug upfor the pu ['pose ]of denying the legitimate compeusar ionto lr,hich the petitioners are entitled for, il landacquisitior proceedings are initiated for the purposr: olacquiring the land for locating Academy for policeDepartmer t or to deny ex gratia to u,hich the petition ersare entitle( for.

For all the above reasons, the impugr-redproceeding s No.B/289l 1999 dated 27.1 .2OO7 are iiableto be set i side and they are accordingly set aside. 'lhewrit petiti rn is allowed accordingly. No order as tocosts."

14. This Court has carefully has carefully gone through the facts on r( cord, the statutory provisions goverlting thefield and has i lso heard the learned counsel for the partiesat length.

1 5. The reievant [statutory ][provisions ][gove ][rning ][thc ][fie ][ld]

are reproduced as under:-

Sections 3 and 4 of the Telangana [Assigned Lands](Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977:- "3. Prohibition [of ][transfer ][of ][assigned lands:-]

( 1) Where, before or after the commencement [of]this Act any land has been [assigned ][by ][the ][Government]to a landless poor [person for purposes of ][cultivation ][or ][as]a house-site then, notwithstanding [anything ][to ][the]contrary in any other law [for the time ][being ][in ][force ][or ][in]the deed of transfer or other [document ][reiating ][to ][such]land, it shall not be transferred [and shall be ][deemed]never to have been transferred; [and ][accordingily ][no right]or title in such assigned land [shall ][vest ][in ][any ][person]acquiring the land by such [transfer.]

(2) No landless poor person shall transfer [any]assigned land, and no [person ][shall ][acquire ][any ][assigned]Iand, eithel by purchase, [gift, ][1ease, ][mortgage, ][exchange]or otherwise.

(3) Any transfer or acquisrtion made [in]contravention of thc [provisions ][of ][sub-section ][(1) ][or ][sub-]section (2) shall be deemed to [be ][nu1l ][and ][void.]

(4) The provisions of this section shall apply [to ][any]transaction of the nature [referred ][to ][in ][sub-section ][(2) in]execution of a decrec or order [of a ][civil ][court ][or ][of ][any]award or order of any other authority.

(5) Nothing in this section shall apply to [an]assigned land which [was purchased ][by ][a ][landless ][poor]person in good faith and for valuable [consideration lrom]the original assignee or [his ][transferee ][prior ][to ][the]commencement of this Act [and ][which is ][in ][the ][possession]of such person for [purposes ][of ][cultivation or ][as ][a ][house-]site on the date of such [commencement.]

ofbreach [of ][provisions ][ofsection ][3:-]Consequence

1. If, in a ny case, the District Collector or anv o1_herofficer not below the ran of a Mandal Revenue Officer,authorised by him in this behalf, is satisfied that theprovisions ol sub-section (1) ol section 3, have beencontravene I in respect of any assigned land, he may. byorder- (a) take po rsession ol the assigned ladn after evicting theperson inlossession after suchwritten noticeas theperson inlossession after suchwritten noticeas theCollector)r Mandal RevenueOfficer maydt:emreasonable and any crop or other produce raised on suchland shal1 l,e iiable to forfeiture and any building or otherland shal1 l,e iiable to forfeiture and any building or otherconstructic I erected or anything deposited, thereon shallalso be for:ited, if not removed by hi, after such notice,as the Co lector or the Mandal Revenue Officer maydirect. Forf :itures under this section shall be adjusted bythe Collectc r or Mandal Revenue Officer anci any proport).forfeited sh all be disposed of as the Collector or MandalRevenue Oi icer may direct; and;also be for:ited, if not removed by hi, after such notice,as the Co lector or the Mandal Revenue Officer maydirect. Forf :itures under this section shall be adjusted bythe Collectc r or Mandal Revenue Officer anci any proport).forfeited sh all be disposed of as the Collector or MandalRevenue Oi icer may direct; and;

(b) (i) reas: ign the said resumed land, other rhan thoselands/area as may be notified by the Government lromtime to tim : in public interest and for public purpose, tothe transfe. ee who purchased the land in good faith eindlor valuabl [. ]consideration on or before 31"t December,2017, subj [.ct ]to the condition that he/ she is landlesspoor persor , and is in occupation of the land by usingthe said for agricuiture or as house site, as on the datt: olta k ing poss.ssion by eviction; Provided th 1t the reassignment in case of transferee slrallbe limited t r only such an extent that the total holding ofthe reassigr ee including any other land held by him/ herdoes not ex:eed 5.00 Acres dry land and 2 [rZ ]Acres rvetland:the reassigr ee including any other land held by him/ herdoes not ex:eed 5.00 Acres dry land and 2 [rZ ]Acres rvetland:

Provided fi Lrther that where the transferee who haspurchased .he land and got reassignment of it, or lisIegal heir, t; ansfers the reassigned land, the land shall beresumed fo' assignment to the other eligible landlesspoor:

(ii) restore the said assigned [land, other ][than ][those]lands/areas as may [be ][notified ][by ][the ][Government ][from]time to time in [pubiic ][interest ][and for public ][purpose, ][to]the original assignee, [subject ][to ][the condition ][that ][he ][or]she is landless poor [person as ][on ][the date of restoration]for one time; or

(iii) assign to olher eligible landlcss poor [person:]Provided that the restoration [of land shall ][be ][limited ][to]onlv such an extent that [the ][total holding including ][any]other land held by him/her [does ][not ][exceed ][5.00 ][Acres]dry land or 2 'l Acres [wet land:]

Provided further that [lvhere ][the original ][assignee ][or ][his]legal heir, after first [restoration transfers ][the ][assigned]land, the land shall be [resumed ][for ][assignment ][to ][the]other eligible landless Poor:

Provided also that if no eligible [landless poor persons ][are]available in the [village ]f [area, ][fhe ][resumed ][land ][will ][be]utilised for public [purpose.]

Explanation: For the [purpose ][of ][this ][clause ]["Public]Interest" and "Public [Purpose" ][shall ][mean ][and ][include,]the Weaker Section [Housing, ][Public ][Utiiity,]Infrastructure Development, [promotion of ][industries ][and]Tourism or for any other [public ][purpose;]

(c) in the area which may be notified [by Government from]time to time, lands resumed [under ][clause 4(a) ][above,]shall be utilised for [public ][purpose:]

(2) An eviction under sub-section [(1) ][shall ][be ][made ][by]serving a notice in the [manner ][prescribed ][in ][section 25 of]the Telangana Revenue [Recovery ][Act, ][1864, ][or ][in ][any]such other manner as [the ][State ][Government may ][direct,]on the person reputed to [be ][in ][occupation ][or his ][agent]requiring him within such [time as the ][Collector ][or ][the]Mandal Revenue Officer [may ][deem ][reasonable ][after]receipt of the said notice to [vacate ][the land, and, ][if ][such]notice is not obeyed, by [removing ][or ][deputing ][a]subordinate to remove any [person ][who ][may ][refuse ][to]vacate the same, and if the [officer removing ][any ][such]person shall be resisted or obstructed [by any person, ][the]

Collector shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts ofthe case arLd il satisfied that the resistance or obsrructionwas withort any just cause and that such resistance orobstructio:L still continues, may issue a warrant forarrest of tLe said person and on his appearance contmithim to clore custody in the office of the collector or of anyMandal R,venue Officer for such period not exceerlingthirty dals as may be necessary to prevent thecontinuan,e of such obstrucrion or resistance or maysend himwith a warrant in the form of schedule lorimprisonrr::nt in the civil jail of the District for the likeperiod:

Providedhat no person so committed cir impriscnedunder thissection shall be liable to be prosecuted undersections 113, 186 or 1 88 of the lndian Penai Code inrespect ofhe same facts.(3) Anylerson who unauthorisedly re-enters andunder thissection shall be liable to be prosecuted undersections 113, 186 or 1 88 of the lndian Penai Code inrespect ofhe same facts.(3) Anylerson who unauthorisedly re-enters andoccupies ary land from which he was evicted unrler thissection, sLa1l be punished with imprisonment for a termwhich maextend upto six months or r,vith fine uptorupees livethousand or with both.section, sLa1l be punished with imprisonment for a termwhich maextend upto six months or r,vith fine uptorupees livethousand or with both.(4) Any orier passed in revision under Section 4-B andsubject tosuch order, the decision in appeal undersection 4Aand subject to the said orders in revisron andappeal, anr order passed under sub-section (1), shall befinal and seall not be questioned in any court of law andno injuncton shall be granted by any court in respe<:t ofappeal, anr order passed under sub-section (1), shall befinal and seall not be questioned in any court of law andno injuncton shall be granted by any court in respe<:t ofany proce€ling taken or about to be taken by an1, ofllceror authoriy or Government in pursuance of an)' powerconferred Iy or under this Act.or authoriy or Government in pursuance of an)' powerconferred Iy or under this Act.

(5) For th<purposes of this section, where any assignedland is inrossession of a person, other than the originalland is inrossession of a person, other than the originalassignee ohis legai heir, ir shall be presumed, until rhecontrary isproved, that there is a contravention ol thecontrary isproved, that there is a contravention ol theprovisionsrf sub-section (1) of section 3,"

Sections i66-C and 172 of the AndhraPradesh (Teiangana Area) Land Revenue Act,1317 F:- 166-8. Revision:- (1) Subject to the provisions ofthe Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Board of RevenueRegulation, 1358 F, the government or any RevenueOfficer not lower in rank to a Collector, the SettlementCommissioner of Land Records may call for the record ofa case or proceedings from a subordinate departmentand inspect it in order to satisfy himself that the order ordecision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legaland proper and may make suitable order in that behalf; Provided that no order or decision affecting therights of the ryots shall be modilied or annulled unlessthe concerned parties are summoned and heard.

(2) Every Revenue Officer lower in rank to aCollector or Settlement Commissioner may call for therecords of a case or proceedings for a subordinatedepartment and satisfy himself that order or decisionpassed or the proceeding taken is regular, legal andproper and if, in his opinion, any order or decision or,proceedings should be modified or annulled, he shall putup the file of the case with his opinion to the Collector orSettlement Commissioner, as the case may [be.]Thereupon the Collector or Settlement Commissionermay pass suitable order under the provisions of sub-section ( 1.) .

(3) the original order or decision or an authenticcopy of the original order or decision sought to be revisedshall be liled along with every application for revision.

166-C. Review by Government:- The Governmentmay, at anv time, either, suo motu, or on application anl'person interested, made within ninety days of the passing, of an order under section 158 or section 1668 [review any]: such order if it was passed by them under any mistake, whether o the fact of lau,, or ignorance [of any ][rnatrlrial]fac t; Prov ded that the Government shall [not ][pass ][any]order adv:rsely affecting the [interests ][of ][any ][person]unless su:h [person ]has been [given ][an ][opportunity ][of]making hi [, ]representation.

12) [This ][Government ][may stay ][the ][execution ][of]any such lecision or order, [pending ][the ][exercise ][of their]powers un ler sub-section (1) in respect thereof.

(3) The provision of this Section shall app:r' [to]an1, order passed under Section 158 or [Section ][1b6-B]whether b :fore or after the Commencemenr [of the ][An,lhra]Pradesh ( lelangana Area) Land Revenue ['(Amendment)]Act, 1990 and in the case of an application [foi ][review]I'rom any cerson interested in respect of [such ][e.n r)rder]passed p ior to such Commencement, the [perioC ][of]ninety dr ys specified in Sub-Section [( ]1) shall [be]computed lrom the date of such Commencement.

L72. Pow tr to make rules:- (1) The Government [ma-y, ][bv]notificatio r published in the Official Gazette, [make ][t'ules]not incon istent with the [provisions ]of this [Act, ][the ][carry]out the I urposes and objects of this Act and [for ][the]guidance rf al1 persons in the matters connected witl-r theenforcemr nt of this Act or in matters not [expressly]provided I :r in the Act.

(2) In par:icu1ar, and without prejudice to the [generality]of the forr going power, rules may be made [with ][regard ][to]the follou, ng matters; (a) the appointment of revenue officers and [the]exe ['cise ]of their powers and their duties;exe ['cise ]of their powers and their duties; (b) rvh re the appointment of the official is subject [to]lur rishing security, the manner in [u'hich ][security]she Il be taken from them and the nature [antl ][the]am )unL of such security;lur rishing security, the manner in [u'hich ][security]she Il be taken from them and the nature [antl ][the]am )unL of such security;

(c) Orr itted

On itted(d)

(e) the assessment [of ][land ][revenue ][and the ][alteration]and revision [of such ][assessment ][and ][the ][recovery]of land revenue;and revision [of such ][assessment ][and ][the ][recovery]of land revenue;(lthe disposal of [attached land;]

(f- 1)to prescribe the [manner ][of ][publication ][of ][lhe]notification and [of ][the ][service ][of ][the notice ][referred]to in sub-section [(3) ][of ][section 46-A;]notification and [of ][the ][service ][of ][the notice ][referred]to in sub-section [(3) ][of ][section 46-A;]

(e) the maximum amount [of ][fine ][leviable ][under]Section 57;Section 57; (h)the purpose for [which ][land ][assessed ][for ][land]revenue may or [may ][not ][be ][used ][and ][to ][grant]permission to use agricultural [land ][for ][non-]agricultural [purPoses;]revenue may or [may ][not ][be ][used ][and ][to ][grant]permission to use agricultural [land ][for ][non-]agricultural [purPoses;]

(i) issuing of notice [in ][the matter ][of ][enhancement of]rent and eviction [from land ][by the ][holder ][to ][the]Asami or bv the [Asami ][to ][the holder ][under ]71rent and eviction [from land ][by the ][holder ][to ][the]Asami or bv the [Asami ][to ][the holder ][under ]71

the area [of a ][number ][under ][Section ][79]U)prescribing and the records, [registers, accounts ][and ][maps ][to]be maintairred [for ][the ][purposes ][of ][this ][Act ][and ][the]manner and forms [in which ][they ][shal1 ][be prepared]and maintained;and the records, [registers, accounts ][and ][maps ][to]be maintairred [for ][the ][purposes ][of ][this ][Act ][and ][the]manner and forms [in which ][they ][shal1 ][be prepared]and maintained; (k)the interest or [penalty ][chargeable ][if ][land ][revenue]is not paid in time;is not paid in time;(l)regulating the [conduct ][of ][survey ][and ][settlement]and land revenue [and ][prescribing ][the ][notice ][to ][be]issued under Section [84 ][before ][the ][inlroduction ][of]settlement;and land revenue [and ][prescribing ][the ][notice ][to ][be]issued under Section [84 ][before ][the ][inlroduction ][of]settlement; omitted (m)

Omitted

(n)

(o) the division of [survey numbers ][into ][pote-numbers]and the assessment [of ][pote-numbers ][under]Section 89-B;and the assessment [of ][pote-numbers ][under]Section 89-B; (p)the construction, [laying ][out, ][maintenance ][and]repair of boundary [marks;]repair of boundary [marks;]

(q) the mode of drawing [up ][plaint, ][appeal, ][application]for review and [revision ][of ][prescribing ][forms ][and]the manner of Presenting [them.]for review and [revision ][of ][prescribing ][forms ][and]the manner of Presenting [them.]

Rule 19 ofthe Laonl [Rules, ][1950]

19. lhe allottee of the [land ][shall ][prepare ][the land]for cultivati rn within three [years ][of ][being placed ][in]possession and commence cultivation [of the ][land]thereafter. T ee [pattadar ][may ][be ][rejected ][by the ][order ][of]the Collectot for breach [of ][any of the ][above ][conditions:]Provid:d that he has [been served ][u'ith ][a ][notice]him [to ][comply ][with ][the ][conditions ][n'hich ][he]calling upor has violatec and he [fails ]to [comply ][with ][it ][within ][three]months of [t ]he date of [service ][thereof. ][If ][land ][has ][been]translbrred in contravention [of the ][collditions, ][the]Collector mr y reject [the transferee."]

16. The learr ed Single [Judge ][while ][allowing ][the ][writ]petition on 05. )2.2OlO has held that [the issue ][decided by]the Mandal Revenue Officer [in ][proceedings ][dated]27.O1.2OO7 wes already dealt [with ][in ][W'P.Nos.13i65 ][and]23639 of 2003

17 . In the cc nsidered opinion [of ][this ][Court. ][the' ][issues]involved in W P.Nos.i3165 [and ][23639 ][of ][2003 ][and ][the]proceedings i rvoived in the [present ][writ ][petition ][are]different. In W P.Nos. 13165 [and 23639 ][of ][2003, the ][issues]raised therein pertained to [the ][legality ][ol ][the ][assignment]orders issued in favour of the [respondents/ ][assignees and]the execution of the GPA in [lavour ][of ][one ][M.A.Baksh ][to]transfer the lands and consequent [violation ][of ][the]assignment ot ders. The [proceedings ][in ][the ][aforesaid ][cases]were bv wav>f suo motu revision under Section [166-8 ][ol]the Land Rerenue Act, 1317F [and ][the ][High Court ][has]

answered that the iegality [of the ][assignment orders ][need]not be gone inLo afte r [forty ][years ][and the ][cause ][of ][action]regarding the execution [of ][GPA ][does ][not ][survive ][since ][the]GPA holder is not alive. [On ][the contrary, the ][issue ][involved]in the present writ [petition ][deals ][with ][the ][proceedings]issued by the Mandal [Revenue ][Officer ][(W.P'No'3634 of]2007) reiates to the execution [of ][sale deeds ][by ][GPA ][holder]in favour of several [persons ][and ][the ][action taken ][under ][Act]No.9 of 1977. As many [as ][71 ][sale deeds ][were ][executed ][in]respect of the assigned [lands' ][A ][coplz ][of ][the ][notice ][dated]Il.l2.2006 furnishing [all ][minute ][details ][of ][the ][sale ][deeds,]is reproduced as under:- "File No.B/289/99 Dated:11-12-2OO6FORM-I

Notice Under Rule [of ][The ][Andhra ][Pradesh ][Assiqned]Lands [(Prohibitron ][of ][Transfers) ][Rules. ][1977]

ToSri Gudupu Saiyulu [& other ][(As ][per the list)]Residing in: Manchirevula, [Village:]Mandal: Rajendranagar, [R.R.Dist.]

As per the verification of [Village ][Records ][of]Manchirevula Village it [is ][evident ][that ][the land ][bearing]Sy.No.393 admeasuring [Ac.326-29 ][gts ][is ][classified ][as]"Porambokc' Out of the said extent [of ][the land the ][then]Tahsildar Hyd. [West assigned ][an ext, ][Of ][Ac ][142-39 ][gts]covered by Sy.No.393/ [3 to ][393 ]I [2l vide ][File]No.A6lS52al6l , [Dt.21 ]l10161 [in ][favour ][of ][Sri ][Balaiah]S/o Venkaiah [ancl ][21 ][other ][and ][temporary ][permission]has been given [to ][the ][above ][assignees ][to occupy ][the ][land]in Form-9 [(G) ]under [Laoni ][rules ][1950. ][Thereafter ][the]names of the individuals [have been ][implemented ][in ][the]

Revenue r:cord in Faisal patti for the year 196l-1962and their r ames brought in to the Revenue Records.and their r ames brought in to the Revenue Records.

It isnoticed that Sri Mailaram Jangaiah and 2lother assi3nees [in ][respect ]of assigned lands bearingSy.No.39320 to an ext. Of Acrs 143-OO sitlr.rted arManchirevrla Village, Rajendranagar Manclal haveexecuteda General Power of Artorney vrdeDoct.No.l l18/91, Dt. 14 lo8l199 1 in favour of the SriAllah Bak:hi S/o Alli Saheb in turn he executed ,..ari,tr-rssale deedin favour of 71 of Purchasers, rn the landscovered b1said survey number, the details of the saledeed as funished by the Jt. Sub-Registrar- II., R.R I)isrricrare as folk ws:- SI, NOSale D cd NoSl.Nc,Sale Deed NoSl. NoSaL: Deed \o585 92'25546919219) tt27 8[,92]tO3, /92s4io /9250ltt423 [192]3IO3( t9227547 I5110124 [t92],I237t t922B92)l)o425,192:)238( t92295967 1925310426',92{)30s96a /92].:) [(t4 ]27 9l237t /92315 969 92!.r lb84a 92326807 /925bl(r44192r)850 92336AOa /92571(,735,_' l1095r 9234680919258t c736,',92t14t 5', /926a1O /92311!1e3t2416, /9236()8119',2t)0| 3lt2r3416: /92i76812192o13lr3931.+4431 /92t\6at3 /92'':931568t4 /92633115/93443- [192],r07311 lc)2_ .131i4434 /924l92653.]17[.t3]r8413. [t92]427343 /92663 t18194434 [t9,2]4373441923119 t3:0443( t9244I O273 9:3120 l3))443i [t92]451027 4 / 926951989.12)102757A-ti17) o276t)),)1092+545i [/92]4iJto277 192

The sale transactions above shown areimpermiss ble and void as same are in contravenrior: ofthe provis on of sub-section (2) of secrion_3 ol theAndhra Pr rdesh assigned land (prohibition of Tr.rnsier)Act 1997. \s per rhe prohibition of the said Act rhere isprohibitior: to sell the land assigned to you and hence-.-. sale transa ltion above relerred are invalid.

As per the [Section ][4 of ][A.P ][assigned ][lands](Prohibition of transfer) Act [1977 ][I, ][satisfied ][that ][the]are [contravened ][the ][provision ][of ][sub-section]assignees (1) of section 3 in respect [of ][assigned ][lands ][bearing]Sy.No.393i 1 to [393 ]l20 [of ][Manchrrevula ][Village ][Hence]you are hereby show cause [as ][to ][why the ][scheduled land]should not be [resumed ][into ][Govt' ][possession as ][in ][such]manner as [prescribed ][bY ][law]

Further the Hon'ble [High ][Court ][of A'P ][in ][its ][order]in W.P.No.13165 & [23639 ]l03, [Dt.2tl04 ]12006 [filed ][bv]M.Narsimha & [Other ][in ][respect ][of ][the ][same ][scheduled]lands has ordered ["l ][deem ][it ][appropriate ][to ][observe ][that]if there is any contravention [of the ][condition ][imposed ][in]the assignment order, [the ][Government ][is ][always ][at]Liberty to cancel [the ][same ][in ][accordance ][with ][the]provisions of law". On [verification ][of ][records ][I ][am]satisfied that there [is ][contravention ][of ][conditions]stipulated in [the assignment order']

Therefore, you are [herby directed ][to ][show ][cause]within [( ]15) days of [receipt ][of ][this ][notice as ][to why your]lar-rd [should not ][be resumed ][back ][in ][respect of]assigned Sy No. 3S3/ 1 to [393 ]l20 [situated ][at ][Manchirevula]Village, Rajendranagar [Mandal for the ][scheduled ][land ][as]sholr,belou,.

THE SCHEDULtrVillageSy. No.DescriptionEn tireOccupiedNature ofSub-of landextentExtentOccupation / [Patta]DivisionAcreCtsAcreGtsl23567EManchirerula393/ 1Poramboke39NiiNilAssignmen Ito393 120DY.Collector &Mandal Revenue [Officer,]Rajendranagar [Mandal.]

To

Sri Narsimha [S/o ][Gangaiah ][& ][his ][L.Rs]R/ o Manchirevula [Village]AMRI [lor ][service ][and ][return ][the ][served copy ]["]Through

18. Meaning thereby in respect of assigned lands, saledeeds were exr cuted which were impermissible rn law. Theaforesaid issu: was never the subject matter ol' earlierlitigation and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, itcould have bet n held by the learned Single Judge that theproceedings dt ted 27 .Ol.2OO7 arc hit by res jud.icata.

19. Another mportant aspect of the case is that thisCourt while deciding the earlier writ petitioni.e., W.P.Nos. i 3165 and 23639 of 2OO3 and C.C.No.163 of2004 has hel I that the Government was at iiberty toproceed with t re cancellation of the assignment in case ofvioiation of co-rditions. Paragraph 15 of the Or.de:, dated21.O4.2006, p rssed in W.P.Nos.13165 and 236.39 ol2003and C.C.No.16 3 of 2004 is reproduced as under:-

" 15. In v :w of the above discussion, I find that :heshou, cau e notice issued by the District RcvenueOfTicer, R.l .District is not legal and proper. When otrcethe show c tuse notice is set aside, the basis for passingthe order mpugned in the writ petitions by the JcintCollector c lnnot be said to be well founded. Bef,:reparting the case, I deem it appropriate to observe that ifthere is a. / contravention of the conditions imposed inthe assign nent order, the Government is always atIiberty to cancel the same in accordance r,,,.it h r_heprovisions rf law."OfTicer, R.l .District is not legal and proper. When otrcethe show c tuse notice is set aside, the basis for passingthe order mpugned in the writ petitions by the JcintCollector c lnnot be said to be well founded. Bef,:reparting the case, I deem it appropriate to observe that ifthere is a. / contravention of the conditions imposed inthe assign nent order, the Government is always atIiberty to cancel the same in accordance r,,,.it h r_heprovisions rf law."

20. Not only [this, ][Review ][Petitions were preferred ][by ][the]assignees challenging [the ][aforesaid ][order ][and ][it ][is ][an]admitted fact that [the ][Review ][Petitions were dismissed ][by]Court. [Meaning ][thereby, the order ][granting liberty]the High to the State Government [to ][take ][action ][in ][case ][ol]contravention of the [conditions ][imposed ][in ][lhe ][assignment]order was upheid. [The learned ][Single ][Judge, ][in ][spite ][of]aforesaid categoricai [liberty ][granted ][earlier ][to ][the ][State]Government to [take action ][in ][case ][of contravention of ][the]conditions imposed [in the ][assignment ][order, ][has]erroneousiy held that [the ][contravention ][of ][the ][conditions]imposed in the [assignment ][order ][means ]['future]contraventions'. The [learned ][Singie ][Judge ][on ][his ][own ][has]imported certain [words ][in ][the ][impugned ][order, ][which ][is]certainly impermissibie [in ][law' ][The ][learned Single ][Judge]has given an erroneous [interpretation ][which ][amounts ][to]re-writing of the Judgment [delivered ][in ][W ][P'Nos ][13165 ][and]23639 of 2003. That [the ][land ][in ][dispute ][is ][an ][assigned]land with a condition [of ][non-alienation' ][The ][Mandal]Revenue officer [has ][issued ][written ][permission ][to ][occupy]the land on [21.10.196 ][1, one ][such ][permission ][which ][was]granted in favour of [Mylarapu ][Pedda Gangaiah ][is]reproduced as under:- "D.Dis No, \618524 l60

Hyderabad DistrictHyderabad.West Tahsildar O tliceDt.2 1. I O. 196 1 .Hyderabad.West Tahsildar O tliceDt.2 1. I O. 196 1 .

Form-G

(Under Rule 9(g))

rUritten permission to occupy land

(To be g ven b,v the Thahasrldar under Loar.ri Ru.les)

Tem rorary patta is granted to Shri. MylarapuPedda Gar: laiah S/o Venkaiah resident of Manchirevulavillage, Ta rsil Hyderabad West, Hyderabad distr.ict, roPedda Gar: laiah S/o Venkaiah resident of Manchirevulavillage, Ta rsil Hyderabad West, Hyderabad distr.ict, rooccupv the following land and to cultivate the sarne, rillthe phodi r ork is completed.the phodi r ork is completed.

1. V .lage name

:Manchirevr-tla

2. Tr luk

: HyderabadWestWest

3. S..No.

: 393

4. T( tal exten t

: 326.28

5. E; tent given under patta

: Ac.7.06 Gts

6. Cr ss

: Rs.7. 15

7. Ni ture of land

: Kancha

:Dry

8. Cl rssification

Sri Iv ylarapu [pedda ]Gandaiah has to pay Rs.7. 15per _vear rom 196l -62 for the land granteci ioroccupalion -inder this permit as assessment.

After the podhi is completed the area a:rdassessment are both fixed by the Dept. of Land Re,cords(Survey anc Settlement). The pattadar is bond ro pay theassessment so fixed, but this change will take effect orrlyfrom the ye rr following in which such change has beenmade as a [.esult ]of the completion of phodi work by theDept. of Lar d Records.

(ln th, case of land granted as not transferable)

lThe grantee is not empowered to transfer the occupanr:ywithout th( sanction previously obtained from theCoilector. T ris permission to occupy shall not conf<:r theright to min: on the land or collect minerals therelior:-r The rights on the [toddy ][tr€es ][will ][vest ][with ][the]Government.

Sd/ -Thahasildar24.r0.1961Hyde rabad West, /Translated [Copy/"]

21, The aforesaid assignment [order ][makes ][it ][very ][clear]that the land in [question was having ][a ][clause ][restraining]the grantee to transfer [the land ][without ][previous ][sanction]of the Collector. In the [present case, ][no ][sanctlon ][was]obtained at any [point ]of [time and ][therefore,.the appellants]were well within their [jurisdiction ][to ][issue notice ][dated]ll.02.2006 and a-fter [hearing ][the ][assignees, ][the ][order]dated 27.OI.2007 has been [passed ][by ][the Mandal ][Revenue]Officer.

22. Another important [aspect ][of ][the ][case ][is ][that ][in ][the]earlier round of litigation, [the ][matter has ][travelled ][to ][the]Honble Supreme Court and [the ][Honbie ][Supreme ][Court ][in]its Judgment dated [28.O4.2OO0 ][passed ][in ][Civil ][Appeal]No.3O33 ol 2000 has [held ][that ][assignees ][were ][allotted]Government land and the [assignment ][was subject ][to ][two]conditions that it shall be used [only ][for ][cultivation ][and ][the]lands would not be alienated [without the ][sanction ][of ][the]Tahsildar. The relevant [extract of the Judgment ][delivered]by the Honble Supreme [Court is reproduced ][as ][under:-]

"...T rus, under the original Laoni Rules, l95O asalso under the Revised Policy published in 1958, thealienation rf the assigned land was prohibited. Whileunder the ,aoni Rules, 1950, the alienation or transferwithout tL: previous sanction of the Collector wasprohibited, under the Revised Policy, it was clearlyprovided t rat though the assigned lands would beheritable, t rey would not be transferred...

This rrder was examined by the Collector who u,asof the opin on that the District Revenue Offlcer had r-rotexamined certain vital aspects of the matter andconsequenl Ly by his order dated 3rd of JanuaD,, 19q5,he susper ded the operation of the order dar-ed15.9. 1994, passed b1, the District Revenue Officei'. Trisorder rvas r hallenged by the respondents in Writ Petitior-lNo.484 of 1995.

In t re meantime, the Collector' \\'rote to lhe(lovernmer t on 31st ol July, 1995 to ratify the acrronindicated ly him in his order dated 3rd of January,1995. By order dated 24th ol January,, 1996, theGovernmer t ratified the Collector's order dated 3rd ofJanuary, 1995 and directed him to procc.ed u,ir.h thcenquiry a rd pass final order. This order of rheGovernmer t was challenged by the respondents in W'ritPetition No 7221196. By a common judgment dated Istof Septemb:r, 1997, a learned Single Judge of the HighCourt allov ed both the Writ Petitions and qLlashcd rheorder of th( Government dated 24th of January, 1996. ltmay be st rted that in the counter-affidavit, liled onbehalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh(appellants, it was, inter alia, stated that rherespondent; had alienated the lands in favour of ei thirdperson. Th:y had converted the agricultural lands intonon-agricu tural lands and had also appointed a GeneralPower of At orney in favour of a developer, lbr det,elopingand sale r I the plots, who converted the lands irlto residential plots in the [name ][and ][style ][of ]["Bakshi]Estates".

The State of Andhra [Pradesh, ][thereafter, ][filed ][two]appeals before the Division [Bench ][but ][the ][Division]Bench took up only one [of ][the ][two appeals, namely, ][Writ]Appeal No.1487/98 and [by ][judgment ][dated 14th ][of]September, 1998, it [dismissed ][the ][said ][appeal ][and]maintained thc order [of ][the ][Single ][Judge ][that ][the]assignment ol lands, [made ][in ][lavour of the ][respondents]thirty years ago, could [not ][be ][touched ]["]

23. The Honble Supreme [Court after ][hoiding ][that ][the]lands were non-transferable [without ][proper ][permission,]remanded the matter back [to the ][Collector ][to ][complete ][the]and the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][has]proceedings categorically held that [the ][lands ][were ][assigned ][and ][were]non-alienable. Thus, [in ][short ][as ][the ][lands ][in ][question ][fall]within the definition of assigned [lands ][under the ][Act ][No'9]of 1977 , the condition of [non-alienation was applicable' ][It]is nobody's case that the [Government ][lands ][were allotted]on payment of [premium/consideration ][or ][by ][way ][of]auction. The Government [lands ][were ][allotted at ][free of cost]to the a-1lottees with a [clear ][clause ][relating ][to ][non-]alienation and therefore, [the ][learned ][Single ][Judge ][has]erred in law and [facts.]

24The Judgment delivered [by the ][coordinate Bench ][in]the case of Letter sent from Plot [No.338 ][v. ][the ][Collector ][and]

District Magist.atel is not applicable to the facts of thepresent case. n the present case, there was a categoricalcondition of n< n-alienation and the Hon'b1e Supreme Courthas held, as s tated earlier, that the assignment of landswere prohibite i both under Laoni Rules and the RevisedAssignment Rr:les and therefore, the learned Single Judgehas again errt d in iaw and on facts in allowing the writpetition.

25. In the car e of Letter sent from plot No,33g (supra), theissue of assign:nent and the applicabiiity of the provisionsof the Act No.! of 1977 has aiso to be looked itrto. It wasconsidered by the Division Bench as to u,hether theassignment mz de under Rule 9 of the Laoni Rules by wayof assignment after collection of market value would becovered by the provisions of the Act No.9 of 1977 and acoordinate Ben:h of this Court in paragraph 49 has heldas under:- "49. \ [re ]are of the view that provisions of Act No.9of 7977 w l1 not be applicable to the cases u,h<.reassignments were made on collection of market value orunder Circu ar 14 except it u,ere granted to the landlesspoor person. free of marl<et value. . .."

26. In the ligl t of the aforesaid. AS IN the present case,the assignmenr was not done after collection rtf rnarket value and the assignment [was ][done ][in ][favour ][of ][landless]without collection [of ][market ][value, ][the ][question of]persons a-lienation without the [permission ][of the ][competent]authority does not arise [and ][therefore, ][the ][learned ][Single]Judge has erred in [law and ][on ][facts ][in ][allowing the ][writ]petition.

27. The learned counsel [for ][the ][respondents ][has ][placed]reliance upon the [Judgment ][delivered ][in ][the ][case ][of ][State]of Telangana v. [(Writ ][Appeal No.91 ][of ][2020, ][decided ][on]10.08.2021).

28. In the aforesaid [case, ][the land ][was assigned ][in ][favour]of the petitioners therein [without ][any ][condition and ][it ][was]an unconditional [assignment. ][Not ][only ][this, ][the ][land ][was]on [payment ][of ][upset price ][equal ][to ][sixteen ][times]assigned of the land revenue, [whereas ][no ][such ][contingency ][is]involved in the [present ][case. ][The ][assignment ][of ][land ][was]done without charging a [single ][rupee ][and ][therefore, ][the]Judgment relied [upon ][is ][again ][distinguishable ][on ][facts']

29. That the factum [of ][execution ][of ][sale ][deeds ][with ][all]minute details u,as [furnished ][to ][the ][assignees ][and ][the]same has not been [controverted. ][The ][GPA ][holder]M.A.Baksh has executed [various ][sale ][deeds ][on ][behalf ][of]assignees by developing [plots ][and therefore, ][as ][there ][was ][a]

clear violatior of the terms and cond.itions of theassignment, z nd by no stretch of imaginatic,n, theproceedings dr.ted 27.O1.2OO7 could not have been setaside by the ler rned Single Judge.

30. It is perti lent to note that the purchasers have alsofiled impiead tr etitions and the sarne was allou,ed b1. thisCourt. They h; Lve also heard by the competent ar.rthorityand thereafter, the Order has been passed..The Act No.9 of1977 was in fo ce at the time the sale deeds were executedand Section 3( )of the Act No.9 of 1977 expressly providesthat the sale ol assigned lands before or commencernent ofthe Act is deer:red null and va]id and therefore, the Orderwas rightly pa rsed by the competent authority resumingthe lands.

31. That the land resumed is being used ior publicpurpose in terres of the Act No.9 of 1977. The land is inpossession and is being used by Greyhounds force vuhich isan elite force deaiing with anti-naxai operations. It isimparting trair ing to commandos and to the solcliers ofcentral armed police force who are deployed to curbnaxalism. The possession of the land was taken by thepurpose in terres of the Act No.9 of 1977. The land is inpossession and is being used by Greyhounds force vuhich isan elite force deaiing with anti-naxai operations. It isimparting trair ing to commandos and to the solcliers ofcentral armed police force who are deployed to curbnaxalism. The possession of the land was taken by theGovernment on 03.06.2003 and the present land has beennotified vide C.O.Ms.No.1835, dated Il,t2.2OO6 by the Government for public interest ald therefore, the Orderpassed by the learned Single Judge deserves to bequashed.passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to bequashed.

32. Much has been argued by learned courisel for therespondents before this Court that in respect of theirentitlement stating that the land is governed by thecondition of patta issued under Rule 9(g) of the LaoniRules. The argument is certainly misplaced as Rule 9(g)contemplates two conditions, viz., tine lands are put toauction and the party to whom the land is allotted sha11deposit 25ok of the vaiue of the land and the auctionamount of the trees thereon and the balance 75ok of thedeposit within fifteen days thereafter. In the present case,no such exercise took place. The lands so allotted are freeof cost to landless persons and therefore, once the la-ndswere allotted free of cost with a 'non-alienation' clause, theappellants have rightly passed the Order resuming theland and allotting the same to Greyhounds.

33. Arrother undisputed aspect of the case is that all landowners gave a power of attorney in 199 I to M.A.Baksh whoexecuted various sale deeds and even though the pou,er olattorney was cancelled later on after execution of the saledeeds, it does not have any consequence since the sale deeds execut -'d per se constitute [violation ][and ][the]cancellation o the GPA by [no ][stretch ][of ][imaginaf ][ion ][cart]come to the re ;crle of the landholders

34. Resultan 1y, this Court is of the [opinion ][that ][the]learned Singl, Judge has erred in [law and ][on ][facts ][in]allowing the u rit petition. The finding [of ][the ][learned ][Single]Judge that isr uance of notice by the [authorities ][€tmounts]to res [judicatt ]is erroneous and therefore,.the [writ ][appeal]deserves to t e allowed. The writ appeal [is ][accordinglv]allowed and t:re Order passed by the learned [Single Judge]is set aside. H rwever, there shall be no order [as ][to ][costs.]

Miscellar eous petitions, pending if any, shail [stand]

closed.

SD/.K.SItINIVASA RAO.IOIl.IT REGISTRARe1,SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,1.The Secretarv. R lvenue [Department, State ][of ][Telangana ][Sec:rettrriat' Hyderabad]2.Tne Drsirict iolle :tor, [Rangi ][Reddy District. ][Hyderabad]J.fiie nJuenre Oii [isional Ofricer, ][Ch-evella ][Division, ][R ][R-Distrid]4.fHe ft,riirOal nev ['nue ][Officer, Rajendranagar ][tvlandal, ][R ][R ][District]5.i;;'c6;-1o- id"', [Jvocite ][denei6i, ][High c"ourt for ][the ][state ][of ][Telangana. ][[oUT]]6.One CC to Sri [P ][)ri ][Prabhakar Advocate ]IOPUC]7.One CC to Sri T iharath [Advocate ]IOPUC]ROne CC to Sri [A' ][rnash Desai ][Advocate ]IOPUC]9.Two CD Copies10. One Spare CoPYMBC//{

-S

DATED: :1111212021

':, iA i€\+ [t""](o:)e-O6JAN2w_2|.a)I [j:,:i, ]i\)'

JUDGMENTWA.No.2l02 of 2010

ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEALWITHOUT COSTS