WA/1510/2017 of THE COLLECTOR, R.R.DIST AND 4 OTHERS Vs SMT. C ANILAJA, HYDERABAD AND 4 OTHERS on 30 December 2020

1. The Revenue Drvisional Offi.cer. Chevella Divrsion. Ranga Reddy District., 31t.:,,,yrrort [Revenue ][onii,ei ][iia"rriiiiri.''"n,tZiiird ][A,aandal ][Ransa ]Reddy

AND

,APPELLANTS

1. No.6., 9 Smt. Chavalr reen Aven Anilaia. ue. W/o N izam Sri. pet Chavaji noaO. ivO Venkata Stayanaravana lVurthy, R/o.plot2.Dmr. Kamata trivedi. W/o I ale Krishna. Dutt " [L*[r;:1,8' ]friveOi. Rlo.plot ["']No.6, Greenfyerye, [Nizampet Road, Hyderabad_98. ][-"]3.i'J#,"#I3:I3:,,ffJ::r1'jry, [S/o Sri Kumara Sastry, ][Prot No. ][6, ][Green Avenue,]fyerye, [Nizampet Road, Hyderabad_98. ][-"]3.i'J#,"#I3:I3:,,ffJ::r1'jry, [S/o Sri Kumara Sastry, ][Prot No. ][6, ][Green Avenue,]

...RESPONDENTS

WAMP. NO:2794 0F 2017

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased tosuspend the operation of judgment in W.p.No.21088 ol 2012, dI: 01 .02.2017,pendlng disposal of the Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellants: SRt C. V. BHASKAR REDDy, GP FOR REVENUE

Counsel for Respondents: SRI NAGESHWARA RAO pAppu WA NO: 1 510 0F 2017

writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent preferred against the orderdated.01 .02.2017 passed in WPNo.2649/2010 on the file of the High Court.

Between:

'1 . The Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The Joint Collector,, Ranga Reddy District

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District.4. The tr,4andal Revenue Officer (Tahslldar),, tt,4oinabad- Mandai, Ranga ReddyDistrict.

5. The Spl. Dy. Collector,, L.A (General), Hyderabad, Nampally Station Road,Hyderabad.

,,.APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

AND

1. Smt. Chavali Anilaja, W/o Sri. Chavali Venkata Stayanarayana lVurthy, plot No.6,Green Avenue, Ni2ampet Road. Hyderabad-98.Green Avenue, Ni2ampet Road. Hyderabad-98.

2. Smt. T. Kamala, [W/o ][Late ][T ][Krishna ][Dutt' ][Plot ][No ][6' ][Green ][Avenue' ][Nizampet]Road, HYderabad-98.HYderabad-98.[[No ][6' ][Green Avenue']][[6' ][Green Avenue']][[Green Avenue']]Road, HYderabad-98.HYderabad-98.[[No ][6' ][Green Avenue']][[6' ][Green Avenue']][[Green Avenue']]

Road, HYderabad-98.HYderabad-98.3. Sri. Gortv Chiranieevt [Sastry, S/o Sri Kumara Sastry' Plot ][[No ][6' ][Green Avenue']][[6' ][Green Avenue']][[Green Avenue']]Nizampet [Road, ]Hyderabad-98 ....RES'.NDENTS/'ETI,.NERSNizampet [Road, ]Hyderabad-98 ....RES'.NDENTS/'ETI,.NERS

....RES'.NDENTS/'ETI,.NERS4. A.P Housing [Board, Rep.By ][its ][Commisioner'lst Floor' Gruhakalpa' ][It/ ][J ][Road']Hvderabad.Hvderabad.

Hvderabad.5. ijff;ilfl;;astructure [Holding Buildings, ][Rep ][bv its ][Vice Chairman & ][M D']" 6;;;;; il"oi, ciurraratpa, M.L. Roao, Nampallv, Hvderabad'" 6;;;;; il"oi, ciurraratpa, M.L. Roao, Nampallv, Hvderabad'

(Respondedent No. 4 to [5 ][are ][not ][necessary parties ][to ][this ][petition) ]

...RESpoNDENrs

WAMP. NO: 2798 [OF ][2017]-- petit,on under SeAon 151 CPC praying that in the [circumstances ][stated ][in]the affidavit [filed ][in ][support ][of ][the ][petition' ][the ][High Court may ][be ][pleased ][to]the [operation ][of ][judgment ][in ][WP ][No 264g ][of ][20'10' ][d\ ][01 02 2017]suspend Counsel for [the Appellants: ][SRI ][C. ][V. BHASKAR ][REDDY,]GP FOR REVENUE

Counsel for Respondent [Nos' ][1 ][to ][3: SRI NAGESHWARA RAO ][PAPPU]

The Court made the [following: ][COMMON JUDGMENT]

cOM MO N

U DG ME NT : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B, Vilaysen Reddy)

These two appeals arise out of the common order dated01.02,2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, in Wp.No.2649 of01.02,2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, in Wp.No.2649 of2010 and Wp.No.210BB of 201,2.

2. WP.No.2649 of 21010 was filed by the petitioners challengingthe order dated 20.11.2009 in case No.Dt/7791/2008 passed by theJoint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Wp. No.210BB of 2Ot2 was fitedchallenging order of resumption dated08.02.2002 in proceedingsNo.B/1250/200L passed by the tyandatRevenue Officer, M oina badtvlandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referredto as they are arrayed in the writ petitions.

4. The brief facts of the case pleaded by the petitioners are asunder:

(a) The petltloner No.1 purchased an extent of Ac.1.00 under aregistered sale deed bearing document No.B2l1996 [dated 04.01.1996;]the petltioner No.2 [purchased ]an [extent of ][Ac.2.00 ][under ][a ][registered]sale deed bearing document [No.3815 ][of ][7997 dated ][05.12.1997;]the petitioner No.3 [purchased ][an ][extent ][of ][0.20 ][hectares under ][a]reglstered sale deed bearing [document No.8408 ][of ][1997 ][dated]05.12.1997. The lands [so ][purchased ][are part of Sy'No ][17612, ][3 ][and ][4,]situated at Aziznagar [Village, ][Grampanchayat, ][Moinabad ][Mandal']Ranga ReddY District (b) The petitioners claimed [that ][the ][land ][in ][the ][above ][survey]number originally [belonged ][to ][one ][Abdul ][Hussaini ][and one ][Mohd']Khaja. Their names [were ][recorded ][in ][pahanies ][for the ][year ][1966']There were multiple [transactions ][and ][the ][title ][devolved ][from ][the]original vendors [to ][various ][persons ][under ][different ][reglstered ][sale]/''

deeds [right ][from ][1965 ][The petitioner ][purchased ][the ][lands ][from ][one]B. Krishna [Sagar, ][S/o' ][Dharamarao' ][who was survived ][by ][his ][sons]B. Vidyasagar, [B. ][Krishna Sagar and ][B' ][Ramsagar' The vendors ][of ][the]petitioners have [got ][title ][to ][the ][lands ][by ][virtue of ][entries ][in ][pahanies']From the [year ][1966-67, ][the ][petitioners ][have been ][requesting ][the]authorities [to ][enter ][their ][names ][in ][the ][revenue records and ][to ][issue]the pattadar [passbooks. Meanwhile, ][the ][petitioners ][found ][suspicious]discrepancies [in ][the ][revenue records; ][the ][Government ][started ][claiminq]rights over the [lands ][in ][the ][year 2001']

(c) Aggrieved by the action of the [Government, ][the ][petitioners]preferred a revision under Section [9 of ][the ][Andhra ][Pradesh Rights ][in]the Land and Pattadar [Pass ][Books ][Act, ][1971, before ][the Joint ][Collector]for correction of entries [in ][the ][revenue ][records ][from ][2001 ][to ][2007']The Joint Collector dismissed the revision [petition under ][impugned]order dated 20.11.2009 by recording that the [lands ][are ][classified ][as]"Kharij Khata" or "Laoni Patta".

(d) However, the petitioners have pleaded that the impugnedorder of the Joint Collector is contrary to the proceedings conducted bythe Special Deputy Collector (LA-General), the land acquisitionauthority, who issued gazette notification dated 11.12.1986 publishedin the Deccan Chronicle English daily newspaper wherein part of thelands of the vendors of the petitioners were acquired. In fact,they have been paid a compensation vide cheque No.047773 dated17.01.1989. The said lands were shown as patta lands in the year1954 reflecting the name of the original owner, Abdul Hussaini.The vendors of the petitioners were in continuous possession of theland.

5. In the counter filed by the respondent No.2 in Wp.No.2469 of2010, it is stated that:

(a) Originally the land in Sy..No.176, total extent of Ac.220.37quntas situated at Aziz Nagar Vjllage of tvloinabad Mandal is aGovernment land classified as,Gairan Sarkari,. As per the faisal pattifor the year 1961-62, theentire Government la ndrn respect ofSy.No.176 was assig nedin favour of fifty-fourbeneficiaries.Accordingly, the Government land in Sy.No.17612 (Ac.2.23 guntas),Sy.No,17613 (Ac.2.02 guntas) and Sy.No.176 /4 (Ac.2.33 guntas) wasassigned to Abdul Hussaini, Mohd. Khaja and pasha Miyan in the year1960-61. The sajd fact was reflected in the pahani \975_76. But theoriginal assignees sord away the rands in contravention of theprovisions of the A.p. Assigned Lands (prohibition of Transfer) Act,1977. Noticing these facts, the respondent No,4 initiated resumptionproceedings under the A.p, Assigned Lands (prohibition of Transfer)Acl, 1,977. The respondent No.4 resumed the lands into Governmentcustody vide proceedings No.B/1250/01 dated 08.02.2002. The samewas subsequently handed over to the APHB (DIL) on tO.O4.2OO7,along with other resumed lands. Since then, the subject land is underthe custody of APHB, (b) Instead of flllng an appeal before the competent authority,on resumption orders, passed by the N4RO, the petitioners havepreferred a revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights inLand and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, which was dismissed by therespondent No.2 vide order dated 20.11.2009. Though as per the landacquisition proceedings No.F/697/87 dated 31,12.1998, Mohd Khajaand Abdul Galib are referred as pattedars and Shiv Sagar as occupantin respect of lands in Sy.No.17613/2 (Ac.0.05 guntas), which wasacquired for laylng pipeline, as per the Tevenue records and faisal [patti]for the year 196l-62, the land in Sy.No.176, total extent of Ac.224.37guntas, is classified as 'Gairan Sarkari'. The land was assigned tofifty-four beneficiaries in the year 1960-61..for agricultural [purpose,],, The [petitioners, ][without ][availing remedy ][of ][appeal, have directly ][filed]

revision before [the ][respondent ][No ][2]

6. Having come [to ][know about ][resumptlon ][proceedings']from the counter [filed ][in ][WP.No ]['2649 ][of ][2010' ][the ][petitioners ][filed]WP.No.210B8 of [2OI2 ][challenging ][the ][resumption ][order ][dated]08.02.2002. [The ][petitioners stated ][that ][the ][resumption ][order ][was]passed by the f4RO unilaterally [without ][following ][the ][provislons ][of ][law']The petitioners [neither had ][knowledge ][of ][resumption orders, ][nor ][any]notice have been [issued ][and ][served on ][them']

7. In the counter affidavit filed in [WP.No.21088 ][of ][2012,]the respondent No.2 stated that [Form-I ][notices ][were ][issued ][to ][the]petitioners. Subsequently, orders dated 08.02.2002 were [passed]resuming the lands to the Government; later, the lands [were ][allotted]to APHB. The petitioners have not filed sale deeds to show that thelands have been purchased by them from the assignees. In any case,the lands are assigned lands. Thus, the sale transactions are hit bySection 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act,1977. fhe said Act is a special enactment. It, thus, overrides the otherlaws. Moreover, the compensation awarded to the petitioners cannotbe taken as approval of their title. For, originally lhe lands belonged tothe Government; the lands were assigned to landless poor in the year1961. Hence, any sale deeds executed in contravention of the A,p.Assigned Lands (Prohibition ofTransfer) Act, 1977 are null and void.

8. On appreciation of the contentions of the learned counselappearing for the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writpetitions. According to the learned Single Judge no no ce was issuedto the petitioners before resumption orders were passed. Therefore,the procedure, which is mandatory under Section 4 of the A. p.

Assigned Lands (prohibition of Transfe r) Act, 1977 calling for claimsr) Act, 1977 calling for claimsbefore resumption of land, has nol been followed by the respondentauthorities The learned Single Judge also pointed out that the namesof the assignees have been shown in the pattadar column continuouslyfor a period of thirty_seven years. Hence, the authorities cannotby the respondentauthorities The learned Single Judge also pointed out that the namesof the assignees have been shown in the pattadar column continuouslyfor a period of thirty_seven years. Hence, the authorities cannotexercise suo motu powers for correcting entries after a period ofthirty-seven years. Thus, the resumption is not legally permissible.thirty-seven years. Thus, the resumption is not legally permissible.

9. Heard Mr. C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, the learned Government pleaderfor Revenue appearing for the appellants, and Mr. Nageshwara RaoPappu, the learned counsel for the respond e nts/petitio n e rs.

10. The learned Government pleader for Revenue submitted thatthe names of the petitioners are shown in notices issued in Form-Iunder Rule 3 of the Andhra pradesh Assigned Lands (prohibition ofTransfer) Rules, 1977, Thus, the learned Single ludge committed errorln concluding that no notice was served on the petitioners. He furthersubmits that indisputably the subject lands are assigned lands,which are allegedly purchased by the petitioneTs, Even if the saidpurchase is made under registered sale deeds, the same is hit by theprovisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition ofTransfer) Act, 1977. Hence, the sale transactions are void. Further,the learned Single Judge could not have set aside the [impugned]proceedings on the ground of unreasonable delay. For, whatconstitutes unreasonable delay depends on facts and [circumstances ][of]each case. The petitioners, who have [purchased ][assigned ][lands,]cannot claim any legal rights over the [lands. ][The ][payment ][of]compensation under the Land Acquisltion [Act ][does ][not ][amount ][to]accepting title of [petitioners, ]as [provisions ][of ][the ][Andhra ][Pradesh]Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) [Act, ][!977 ][have ][got ][overriding]e ffect,

11. On [the ][other hand' ][the ][learned ][counsel ][for the ][petitioners]submitted [that the ][petitioners were ][not ][served ][with ][any notice ][before]the [impugned resumption ][order' ][Even ][if ][the ][lands ][are]passing assigned [lands, ][the ][sale ][of ][the ][said lands ][is per ][se ][not ][prohiblted]under law [unless ][there ][ls ][a ][condltion ][of ][non-alienation ][in ][the]assignment [pattas, The ][assignment ][pattas were ][not ][placed ][on ][record]by the Government. [Even ][the ][MRO ][did not ][bother ][to ][look ][into ][the]assignment [pattas. ][In ][the ][absence ][of ][assignment ][pattas' ][available ][on]record, it cannot [be ][assumed ][that the ][sale transactions ][of ][so-called]assigned lands are hit [by ][the ][provislons ][of the ][A.P, ][Asslgned ][Lands](Prohibition of Transfer). Act, 7977. In the [resumption ][order ][dated]08.02.2002, passed by the MRO, though [it ][is stated ][that ][notices ][have]been served on the [petitioners ]under Rule [3 ][of ][the ][A.P. Assigned ][Lands](Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 1977, there is no proof filed regardingthe sa id assertion.

12. The learned Government Pleader for' Revenue has drawnattention of this Court to the notice, at page Nos.129 to 131 ofmaterial papers/ issued in Form I of Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands( Proh ibited ofTransfer) Rules, 19 77.

13. It appears that the aforesaid three notices did not form part ofthe record before the learned Single Judge. In any case, there is noproof of service of these notices. It appears the notices have been sentthrough RPAD, but proof of service thereafter through registered postis not evidenced from any of the documents relied upon by the learnedGovernment Pleader.

14. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned GovernmentPleader that the notices were served upon the petitioners is clearlyuntenable. Further, it is evident from the record that the lands have I

been initially sold in the year 7965/1966 as per the contents of twosale deeds dated 23.O2.1967 filed as Exs.p13 and p14.The purchasers, From the original asstgnees in the year 1966,subsequently sold the lands to third parties in the year 1967 underregistered sale deed. subsequenUy, there were other sare transactionsin the year 1997. The assigned lands, which were sold in t966/1967r.e. prior to coming into force of the Act g of lg77 per se cannot betreated as void transactions. If assigned lands have been purchased bylandless poor persons for the purpose of agriculture, the same areprotected under Section 3(5) of the A.p. Assigned Lands (prohibition ofTransfer) Act, 7977 .

15. As borne out from the record, the original purchasers from theassignees in the year 1966 and subsequent purchasers have not beenissued notices. The petitioners, who purchased in the year 1,966_67,are alleged to have violated the provisions of the A.p. Asslgned Lands(Prohibition of Transfer) Acl, 1977. Unless it is clear that initial sale inthe year 1966 is contrary to the provisions of the A.p, Assigned Lands(Prohibition of Transfer) Acl, 7977, an automatic conclusion cannot bedrawn that subsequent sales made in the year t996-97 are hit by theprovisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act,1977. The violation, if any, is not by the sale deed executed in theyear 1996-97. In fact, the violation, if any, was under the sale deedsexecuted in the year 1965/1966. Initiation of resumption [proceedings]against the petitioners without issuing [notices ]to [the ][original]purchasers of assigned lands in the year 1965/1966 is arbitrary andunsustainable. Even if the initial [violation ][is ][taken from ][the ][year]1965/1966, it is almost after more [than ][thirty-five years ][the]resumption proceedings were [issued. ][Hence, ][the ][resumption ][orders,]

(

ofhaving [been ][passed ][thlrty-five ][years ][from ][the ][date ][of ][first ][set]transactions [in ][the year ][1966, are ][arbitrary']

ThiS [COUTT ][\N ][DASARI ][NARAYANA ][RAO ][V. ][DEPUTY ][COLLECTOR]16, AND MANDAL [REVENUE ][OFFICER' ][SERILINGAMPALLY' ][RR ][DISTRICT]t2010 [(4) ][ALT 6551 held ][that the ][resumption ][order ][passed ][without]considering [the ][assignment ][patta ][and ][conditions ][therein is ][illegal ][and]void. The argument [of ][the ][learned Government ][Pleader ][that ][the ][lands]are, admittedly, [assigned ][lands ][and ][after ][G ][O'Ms'No ][1406 ][dated]25.07.1958 came [into force, ][non-alienation was ][a condition ][precedent]for assignment [of ][lands and ][thus, ][purchase ][of ][lands by ][the ][petitioners]isinViolationoftheA.P.AssignedLands(ProhibitionofTransfer)ACt,1977 is untenable since [the ][resumption proceedings, ][if any, ][were ][to ][be]issued, the same could [be ][done only ][after ][issuing ][prior ][notice ][to ][all ][the]purchasers of the land right from the [year ][7965/7966. ][Admittedly,]the title of the land has changed [several ][hands ][and ][origlnal ][purchasers]in the year 1965/1966 have not been [put ]on [notice. ][So also ][there ][rs ][no]material to show that the [petitioners ]were put on notice; thus,the proceedings impugned is illegal and arbitrary.

17. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any meritin the present wrlt appeals. Therefore, both these appeals standdismissed. The common order dated 07.02.2077, passed by thelearned Single Judge in WP.Nos.2649 of 2010 and 21088 of 2OI2,is hereby affirmed.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pendinq if any,shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

SD/. A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMAIITRUE COPYIIDEPUTY REGIRTo,- , ; [fru ][;S ][L{;ff ][5;i ][sffi ]['fi ][; ][3 ][8: ][fiil ][i ][t%,Ai".la; ][sLI;:::: ][::i' ][" ]4il}l- \\1-\4+)D'

HIGH COURT

DATED: 3011212020

1HEs14BQoO0 7JAt{ wuzo**P.rrTHFP

COMMON JUDGMENT

WA NOS: 1509 AND [1510 ][OF ][2017]

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALSWITHOUT COSTS