WP/18326/2005 of Azeemuddin Khan S/o Md. Muneeruddin Khan Vs The Joint Collector, on 31 December 2010

ORAL ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring theproceedings No.E1/504/03 dated 1.5.2005 of the first respondentconfirming the orders of the second respondent in Case No.D/459/02dated 25.10.2002 and proceedings of the third respondent inNo.B/645/1-7/00 dated 20.10.2000 as arbitrary, illegal and violative ofprinciples of natural justice and consequently declare that therespondents have no authority to resume the land after lapse of longperiod.

According to the petitioner, he has purchased land to an extentof Ac.5-09 guntas in Sy.Nos.139, ,140 of Tolkatta village, Moinabadmandal, Ranga Reddy district from Samala Sudershan Reddy videregistered document No.2559/95 dated 8.12.1995, who in turnpurchased the same from the original assignees namely T.Yadaiahand T.Venkaiah under registered sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.774,775 dated 27.7.1977. The original assignees were in possession ofthe subject land in pursuance of the assignment made prior to 1954. According to the petitioner, he has been in possession and enjoymentof the subject land from the date of purchase i.e. on 8.12.1995 till date. However, without issuing any notice and without conducting anyenquiry, third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer passed ordersdated 20.10.2000 for resuming the subject land to the Government onthe ground that unauthorized persons are in possession of the landand that the said land being assigned land, the same could not havebeen sold by the original assignees. Being aggrieved by the saidorder, petitioner filed appeal before the second respondent-RevenueDivisional Officer and the second respondent however, dismissed the same on 25.10.2002. Further aggrieved thereby, petitioner filedrevision before the first respondent-Joint Collector. The firstrespondent, dismissed the said revision vide order dated 1.5.2005confirming the order passed by the primary authority. Hence this writpetition.

The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended thatinitially the subject land was allotted to vendor’s vendor prior to 1950,therefore, the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition ofTransfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘Act 9/77’) has no application to the caseon hand and this fact was not taken into consideration by therespondents though the petitioner asserted that the assignment madein favour of his vendor’s vendor prior to 1950. Neither in theimpugned order, it is asserted that the assignment was not made priorto 1950 nor it is asserted that the assignment is made on a particulardate. Therefore, it cannot be said that the provisions of Act 9/77 areapplicable to the present case. I am in full agreement with thesubmissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner. The learnedcounsel further relied upon the judgment in A.P. STATEELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES UNION, CHITTOORDISTRICT v. JOINT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR[[1]]and drawn theattention of the Court to paragraph 15 of the said judgment, whichreads as under:

“I find force in the submission of the learned counselfor the petitioner, since, admittedly, the condition that the landassigned shall not be alienable was not in force in the year1933 when the assignment was made in favour ofK.Obulappa. Nothing has been placed before this Court toshow that the Order promulgated in G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated18.4.1954 has retrospective application, muchless anymaterial is produced to show that the ‘D-form patta’ granted infavour of K.Obulappa contained such a condition. As a matterof fact, even the impugned order dated 12.6.1998 did notreflect that the second respondent had taken any steps to verify as to whether the assignment granted to K.Obulappa inthe year 1933 contained any such condition prohibitingalienation. Hence, the impugned order of cancellation ofassignment is vitiated by non-application of mind to therelevant aspects and liable to be set aside on that groundalone”.

Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that unless thedate of original assignment and D-form patta issued in favour oforiginal assignee are taken into consideration as part of evidence, itcannot be said that the provisions of Act 9/1977 are applicable. Therefore, the order passed by the primary authority-third respondentdated 20.10.2000 as confirmed by the second respondent vide orderdated 25.10.2002 and further confirmed by the first respondent videorder dated 1.5.2005 are liable to be set aside and are accordingly setaside. The matter is remanded to the primary authority-thirdrespondent for fresh adjudication and the petitioner shall be givenopportunity to lead evidence, if any required. Till the disposal of thematter by the third respondent, status quo as on today shall be maintained.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

______________C.V.RAMULU,JDate: 31.12.2010DA

31.12.2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

Date: 31[st] December, 2010

Between:Azeemuddin KhanThe Joint Collector,Ranga Reddy district and others.

And

.. Petitioner

.. Respondents

[1]2008 (1) ALD 29