WP/29463/2013 of Bondugula Surender Reddy Vs The Joint Collector, on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learnedAssistant Government Pleader for Assignment lor therespondent Nos. 1 to 3,learned counsel for therespondent No.1O and the respondent Nos.4 to 9 areproforma parties and perused the entire material onrecord.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits thatthe father of the petitioners was a freedom hghterUnder the politicai sufferer quota, the land admeasuringto an extent of Ac.5-11 gts., situated in [Sy.No.658]situated at Duddeda Village, Kondapak Mandal, MedakDistrict was assigned by the then M.R.O., Kondapak [utde]proceedings No.B/ 1559 I 1,997, dated 04.1O.L997. [In]pursuance of the said assignment, the father of [the]petitioners was in possession and enjo5rment of the saidland till his death on 31.10.2001. After the death [of the]father of the petitioners, the respondent [Nos.4 ][to I]

herein han,e set up a false claim that they havepurchaseci the subject iand from the fathel of thepetitioners in the year 1998 and 2000 and also mutatedtheir namr:s; in the revenue records and illegally occupiedthe subject lands from the petitioners. On the complaintfiled by thr: petitioners, the respondent No.3 r:nquiredinto the matter, after giving notices to the parties, passedan order in proceedings No.B/315/2006 dated77.O8.2OO7, stating that in view of Section 4( l) of theA.P. Assign':d Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) A<:t, 1977,restored thr: subject land in favour of the petitioners andordered for correction of the revenue records. A.ggrievedby the said order of the respondent No.3, the respondentNos.4 to 9 fi1ed an Appeai before the respondt::nt No.2and after hearing both sides dismissed the Appreal uddeproceedings No.Cl3054 l2OO7, dated 02.06.2Ct08 andconfirmed the orders of the respondent No.3. Thereafter,challenging the said orders passed by the respondentNo.2, the respondent Nos,4 to 9 frled Revision before therespondent No.1 and the respondent No. I uicle order ry dated25.O7.2O13 dismissed the Revision petition hled bythe respondent Nos.4 to 9 confirming the orders of therespondent No.2 and as well as M.R.O., Kondapak andthe respondent Nos.4 to 9 confirming the orders of therespondent No.2 and as well as M.R.O., Kondapak anddirected the respondent No.3 to resume the subject landin favour of the Government under proper panchanamaas there is no provision to restore the subject land to thein favour of the Government under proper panchanamaas there is no provision to restore the subject land to thelegal heirs of the freedom fighter and to make necessaryentries in the revenue records. Challenging the saidresumption orders, the petitioners filed the present writpetition seeking a direction to set aside the resumptionorders passed by the respondent No.1 and requested toallow the writ petition.3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenueentries in the revenue records. Challenging the saidresumption orders, the petitioners filed the present writpetition seeking a direction to set aside the resumptionorders passed by the respondent No.1 and requested toallow the writ petition.3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenuebasing on instructions would submit that the respondentNo.1 has rightly dismissed the revision petition filed bythe unofficial respondents and directed to resume thethe unofficial respondents and directed to resume thelands as the father of the petitioners violated theprovisions of Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned L,ands(Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and there is noirregularity and illegality in the orders passed by theirregularity and illegality in the orders passed by the respondent No.1 and requested to dismiss the writpetition.

4. After hearing both sides, this Court iri of theconsidered view that the petitioners are [questic,ning the]impugned proceedings, dated 25.07.2073 passed by therespondent No. 1 in File No.F3/539t5 l2OO8-F3/33/Assn/2OOB in so far as it relates to orderingresumption of land in Sy.No.65B, admeasuring Acs.5.11gts., situated at Duddeda Village, Kondapak Mandal,Medak Dis;trict, of the petitioners in favour of theGovernment. There is no dispute with regar:l to [the]assignment of land to the father of the petitioners underpolitical sulferer quota in the suit schedule property asper proceerlings dated 04.10.1997. While it t>eing so,after the death of the father of the petitioners, the namesof the un-ofhcial respondents were mutated in therevenue re<:ords. Basing on the complaint made by thepetitioners, the respondent No.3-Tahsildar conductedenquiry anrl restored the possession to the petitioners inproceedingsr No.B/315 /2006, dated 77 .|)B.2OO7 .

Aggrieved by the same, unofhcial respondents filed anAppeal before the respondent No.2 for correction ofentries in the revenue records. The respondent No.2after issuing notice to the petitioners and after hearingboth sides, held that as per standing instructions of theAppeal before the respondent No.2 for correction ofentries in the revenue records. The respondent No.2after issuing notice to the petitioners and after hearingboth sides, held that as per standing instructions of theGovernment, the freedom fighter is eligible to sale theassigned land only after completion of ten ( 1O) years fromthe date of assignment, but, the lands were sold to theunofficial respondents within one year. In view of thesame, as per Section a (1) of the Andhra pradeshAssigned Lands (prohibition of Transfer) Act, l9TZ, theiands can be restored to the original assignees anddismissed the Appeal against the said orders.Assigned Lands (prohibition of Transfer) Act, l9TZ, theiands can be restored to the original assignees anddismissed the Appeal against the said orders.Thereafter, the unofficial respondents hled revisionpetition before the respondent No.1 and in the revisionpetition, the respondent No. t has given a finding that theoriginal assignee has violated the assignment conditionsas stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.1g5, Revenue (Assn_l)Department, dated 11.03. t99T and there is no provisionfor restoration of assigned lands to the legal heirs of thepetition before the respondent No.1 and in the revisionpetition, the respondent No. t has given a finding that theoriginal assignee has violated the assignment conditionsas stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.1g5, Revenue (Assn_l)Department, dated 11.03. t99T and there is no provisionfor restoration of assigned lands to the legal heirs of the original assignees and directed the respondent No.3_Tahsildar concerned to resume the suit schedule land infavour of the Government.

5. The respondent No.1 passed impugneci orders mainly basing on the G.O.Ms.No.1g5, Revenue (Assn.I)Departmenl., dated lI.O3.lg97 and G.O.Ms.No.917,Revenue (Assn.l) Department, dated 31.10. 1997. Takinginto account of the said G.O,s, it is stated r.hat thefreedom figtrters are not entitled to alienate the lands. Ifthe assigned tand is alienated by way of sale by afreedom hghter, such assignment shall be cancelled andthe land sha.ll be resumed by the Government.6. The irnpugned order passed by the respondentNo. 1 on Z:;.O7.2013 was based on G.O.Ms.No.185,Revenue (Assn.l) Department, dated 1 1.03. andl9|)7 G.O.Ms.No.917, Revenue (Assn.l) Department, dated31.10. 1997, but the above said G.O,s were amerrded byissuing G.O Ms.No.1045, Revenue (Asn.I) Department,dated 15. 12.2OO4 and the operative portion of the saidG.O. is as lcrl lows:

I

ry

..ORDER:

_ [In ][para ][3(3) ][of ][the ][G.Os. ][read ][above, ][the ][following]words i.e., "The Freedom Fighters are not entitled toalienate the lands. If the assigned lald is a_lienated by wayof sale by a Freedom Fighter, such assignment shall becancelled and the land shall be resumed by theGovernment" shall be deleted and the foliowingamendment shall be substituted:- Amendment "(3) fh9 Freedom Fighters are free to sell away theirassigned lald and house sites after a period of ten years,'.

7. After the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1O4S, Revenue (Asn.I) Department, dated lS.l2.2OO4, there is nomention about the cancellation of assignment granted tothe freedom fighters, even if there is any violation of thecondition of the assignment patta granted in favour ofthe freedom fighters.

8. The orders passed by the respondent No.3 on

17. O8.2OO7 and the exisring Rule 4(1) of theA.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, L977,as on the date of the orders passed by the respondentas on the date of the orders passed by the respondent No.3-Tahsildar is as follows:

*4. Consequences of breach provisions of Section 3:_

(1) If in any case, the District Collector or any other ofhcernot below the rank of a [Mandal Revenue Officer] authorised byhim in this behalf, is satisfied that the provisions of sub_section(1) of Section 3 have been contravened in respect of any assignedland, he may, by order- (a) take possession of the assigned land, after evicting theperson in possession in such manner as may be prescribed; and(b) reslore the assigned land to the origrnal assignee or hislegal heir, or whcre it is not reasonably practicable to restc,re theIand to such assignee or legal heir, resume the assigned li:ld toGovernmenl- for assignment to landless poor pcrso,rs inaccordance with the rules for the time being in force; Providt:d that the assigned land shall not be so restr:red tothe original assignee or his legal heir more than once, and in casethe original assignce or his legal heir transfers the assigne,l landagain after such restoration, it sha-ll be resumed t o theGovernmenl. f or assignment to any other landless poor persDn.

In view of the above provision, the petitioners are entitled to restore the assigned lands as legal heirs of theoriginal assignee. The orders passed by the respondentNo.3 uide proceedings No.B/315/2006, dated77.O8.2OO7, which were conflrmed by the respondentNo.2 in proceedings No.C/305a/2OO7, daLed 02.t)6.2OO8,are valid ar:rd the orders passed by the respondent No. 1uide proceeding No.F3/5395 /2OO8-F3 / 33/Assn/2008,dated25.O';.2013 is liable to be set aside.

9. The respondent Nos.4 to t have filed RevisionPetition belbre the respondent No.1 but not ctrallengedthe impugrred orders dated 25.O7.2073, passerl by therespondent No.l. They have made proforma parties inthe writ [pretition,]AS they have not challenged the '2013' [It ][clearly]impugned [proceedings ][dated ][25.07 ]shows that they [have ][no ][interest ][in ][the ][suit ][schedule]property.

i0. In view of [the ][same, ][the ][writ ][petition ][is ][disposed ][of]and. the impugned [orders ][passed ][by the respondent ][No'1]uide proceedings [No. tr3 ]I [5395 ]/ [2OO8-F3 ][/ ][33 ][/Assn ][I ][2OO8']d.ated 25.07.20 [13 ][is ][set ][aside ][and ][the ][orders ][passed by]the respondent [No.3 ][in ][proceedings ][No'B/315/2OO6']dated 17.O8.2OO7 [and the ][orders ][passed ][by ][the]rdspondent [No.2 ][in ][proceedings ][No'C/305a/2OO7' ][daled]02.06.2008 [needs ][no ][interference' ][There ][shall ][be ][no]order as to [cosls.]

Miscellaneous [petitions ][pending, ][if ][any' ][shall stand]

.--:-\

closed.

sdI T. TIRUMALA [DEVI]ASSIST REGISTRARCER

//TRUE [COPY//]

To1. The Joint [Collector, Medak at ][Sangareddy-' ][lVled.ak ][District']1. The Joint [Collector, Medak at ][Sangareddy-' ][lVled.ak ][District']

The Joint Joint iil il;; D'visional [officer, ][Siddipet' ][ttttgla-t District']ii." iln.iru"i,iondapak iln.iru"i,iondapak [[Kondapak ]][Mandal' ][Medak District'][[the ][State ]][[State ]]iil il;; D'visional [officer, ][Siddipet' ][ttttgla-t District']ii." iln.iru"i,iondapak iln.iru"i,iondapak [[Kondapak ]][Mandal' ][Medak District'][[the ][State ]][[State ]]

2.

3. ii." iln.iru"i,iondapak iln.iru"i,iondapak [[Kondapak ]]4Two CCs [to ][GP ][for ][ASSlcrtf-ft'reftii ][iign ][Court for ][[the ][State ]][[State ]][of ][Telangana at]Hvderabad. [OUT]4Two CCs [to ][GP ][for ][ASSlcrtf-ft'reftii ][iign ][Court for ][[the ][State ]][[State ]][of ][Telangana at]Hvderabad. [OUT]5ffi ccIJdnr [i.'sesnncrRl ][RAo, ][Advocate ][[oP-uc]]6. 6;; aa [io ][snr ][nevrr'roER ][ALKUCHI' ][Advocate ][[oPUC]]6. 6;; aa [io ][snr ][nevrr'roER ][ALKUCHI' ][Advocate ][[oPUC]]

aa . 6;;;a [io ][snr ][snrr'lvAs ][KAPATIA' Advocate ][[OPUC]]

7I. Two CD [CoPies]SAMP$I. Two CD [CoPies]SAMP$

! -.': .'

. 1 [.. ]a:'-

HIGH COURT

DATED:3111212024

ORDER

WP.No.29463 of 2013

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

o[w['9]

I1$t[. ][STAI ][q]q\It.30,.'.i [2t?i]coiai* D1:,gp1iC

t