Bondugula Surender Reddy v. The Joint Collector,

[ 3302 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION NO:29463 0F 2013 Between:

S/o. Desai Reddy, Aged about 63 years'

Bondugula Surender ReddY, Occupation Agriculture Bonduoula Venkat ReddY'

Occupition Agriculture S/o. Desai Reddy, Aged about 60 years, lBoth Ryo. H.No.10-1-185/3/2, Mangamma Thota Siddipet Town' Medak Districtl .....PETITIONERS AND

1. The Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy IVIedak District'

2. TheRevenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District'

3. The Tahsildar, Kondapak Kondapak Mandal' Medak District

4. Mohd. Khaja Mohiuddin, S/o. Shaik lmam,

5. Vanga Surender Reddy' S/o. Parsha Reddy

6. Vanga Swaroopa Rani, W/o. Surender Reddy

7. Soma Sundaraiah, S/o. Gouraiah B. Soma Rathnawa, W/o. Gouraiah,

9. Soma Srikanth, S/o. Sundaraiah, {Respondents No'4 to 9 are formal parties -' ;a "o relief is claimed against them) 'lo. Naoaouri Balariu Goud, S/o.Yella Goud, 57 years' R/o'Duddeda viz' '- koia'apafa Ma-ndal, Siddipet District'

(R - 1O is impleaded as per Court Order dated 21-2'2018 in l'A'No'l of )otz wPuP.ito.37lo'l ot 20171 .....RESPONDENTS

Petition under hrticle 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High ()ourt may be pleased to issue an acpropriate writ, order or direction more pa(rcularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to file No F3/5395/2008 - F3/33/Assn/2008 d|25.07.2013 of the Joint Collector, Medak, at Sangareddy i.e. 'l st Respondent herein in so far as it relates to ordering resumption of land in of Sy. No.658 admeasuring Ac.5-'l 1 Gts situated at Duddeda (Village), Kondapak (Mandal), Irledak (District) from the Petitioners in favour of the Government as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI E.SESHAGIRI RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 3 : AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT (REVENUE) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 9 : SRI SRINIVAS KAPATIA Counsel for the lmplead Respondent : SRI RAVINDER ALKUCHI The Court made the following ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.29463 OF 2OLs ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment lor the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, learned counsel for the respondent No.1O and the respondent Nos.4 to 9 are proforma parties and perused the entire material on record.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioners was a freedom hghter Under the politicai sufferer quota, the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5-11 gts., situated in Sy.No.658 situated at Duddeda Village, Kondapak Mandal, Medak District 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 said land 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 have purchaseci the subject iand from the fathel of the petitioners in the year 1998 and 2000 and also mutated their namr:s; in the revenue records and illegally occupied the subject lands from the petitioners. On the complaint filed by thr: petitioners, the respondent No.3 r:nquired into the matter, after giving notices to the parties, passed an order in proceedings No.B/315/2006 dated 77.O8.2OO7, stating that in view of Section 4( l) of the A.P. Assign':d Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) A<:t, 1977, restored thr: subject land in favour of the petitioners and ordered for correction of the revenue records. A.ggrieved by the said order of the respondent No.3, the respondent Nos.4 to 9 fi1ed an Appeai before the respondt::nt No.

2 and after hearing both sides dismissed the Appreal udde proceedings No.Cl3054 l2OO7, dated 02.06.2Ct08 and confirmed the orders of the respondent No.3. Thereafter, challenging the said orders passed by the respondent No.2, the respondent Nos,4 to 9 frled Revision before the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.

ry dated25.O7.2O13 dismissed the Revision petition hled by the respondent Nos.4 to 9 confirming the orders of the respondent No.2 and as well as M.R.O., Kondapak and directed the respondent No.3 to resume the subject land in favour of the Government under proper panchanama as there is no provision to restore the subject land to the legal heirs of the freedom fighter and to make necessary entries in the revenue records. Challenging the said resumption orders, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to set aside the resumption orders passed by the respondent No.1 and requested to allow the writ petition.

3.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on instructions would submit that the respondent No.1 has rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the unofficial respondents and directed to resume the lands as the father of the petitioners violated the provisions of Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned L,ands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and there is no irregularity and illegality in the orders passed by the

respondent No.1 and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

4. After hearing both sides, this Court iri of the considered view that the petitioners are questic,ning the impugned proceedings, dated 25.07.2073 passed by the respondent No. 1 in File No.F3/539t5 l2OO8F3/33/Assn/2OOB in so far as it relates to ordering resumption of land in Sy.No.65B, admeasuring Acs.5.11 gts., situated at Duddeda Village, Kondapak Mandal, Medak Dis;trict, of the petitioners in favour of the Government. There is no dispute with regar:l to the assignment of land to the father of the petitioners under political sulferer quota in the suit schedule property as per proceerlings dated 04.10.1997. While it t>eing so, after the death of the father of the petitioners, the names of the un-ofhcial respondents were mutated in the revenue re<:ords. Basing on the complaint made by the petitioners, the respondent No.3-Tahsildar conducted enquiry anrl restored the possession to the petitioners in proceedingsr No.B/315 /2006, dated 77 .|)B.2OO7 .

Aggrieved by the same, unofhcial respondents filed an Appeal before the respondent No.2 for correction of entries in the revenue records. The respondent No.2 after issuing notice to the petitioners and after hearing both sides, held that as per standing instructions of the Government, the freedom fighter is eligible to sale the assigned land only after completion of ten ( 1O) years from the date of assignment, but, the lands were sold to the unofficial respondents within one year. In view of the same, as per Section a (1) of the Andhra pradesh Assigned Lands (prohibition of Transfer) Act, l9TZ, the iands can be restored to the original assignees and dismissed the Appeal against the said orders. Thereafter, the unofficial respondents hled revision petition before the respondent No.1 and in the revision petition, the respondent No.

t has given a finding that the original assignee has violated the assignment conditions as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.1g5, Revenue (Assn_l) Department, dated 11.03.

original assignees and directed the respondent No.3_ Tahsildar concerned to resume the suit schedule land in favour 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. Taking into account of the said G.O,s, it is stated r.hat the freedom figtrters are not entitled to alienate the lands. If the assigned tand is alienated by way of sale by a freedom hghter, such assignment shall be cancelled and the land sha.ll be resumed by the Government. 6.

The irnpugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 on Z:;.O7.2013 was based on G.O.Ms.No.185, Revenue (Assn.l) Department, dated 1 1.03. l9|)7 and G.O.Ms.No.917, Revenue (Assn.l) Department, dated 31.10. 1997, but the above said G.O,s were amerrded by issuing G.O Ms.No.1045, Revenue (Asn.I) Department, dated 15. 12.2OO4 and the operative portion of the said I G.O. is as lcrl lows:

ry ..ORDER:

_ In para 3(3) of the G.Os. read above, the following words i.e., "The Freedom Fighters are not entitled to alienate the lands. If the assigned lald is a_lienated by way of sale by a Freedom Fighter, such assignment shall be cancelled and the land shall be resumed by the Government" shall be deleted and the foliowing amendment shall be substituted:- Amendment "(3) fh9 Freedom Fighters are free to sell away their assigned 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 no mention about the cancellation of assignment granted to the freedom fighters, even if there is any violation of the condition of the assignment patta granted in favour of the freedom fighters.

8. The orders passed by the respondent No.3 on 17.O8.2OO7 and the exisring Rule 4(1) of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, L977, as 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 ofhcer not below the rank of a [Mandal Revenue Officer] authorised by him in this behalf, is satisfied that the provisions of sub_section

(1) of Section 3 have be land, he may, by orderen contravened in respect of any assigned

(a) take possession of the assigned land, after evicting the person in possession in such manner as may be prescribed; and (b) reslore the assigned land to the origrnal assignee or his legal heir, or whcre it is not reasonably practicable to restc,re the Iand to such assignee or legal heir, resume the assigned li:ld to Governmenl- for assignment to landless poor pcrso,rs in accordance with the rules for the time being in force; Providt:d that the assigned land shall not be so restr:red to the original assignee or his legal heir more than once, and in case the original assignce or his legal heir transfers the assigne,l land again after such restoration, it sha-ll be resumed t o the Governmenl. 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 the original assignee. The orders passed by the respondent No.3 uide proceedings No.B/315/2006, dated 77.O8.2OO7, which were conflrmed by the respondent No.2 in proceedings No.C/305a/2OO7, daLed 02.t)6.2OO8, are valid ar:rd the orders passed by the respondent No. 1 uide 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 Revision Petition belbre the respondent No.1 but not ctrallenged the impugrred orders dated 25.O7.2073, passerl by the respondent No.l. They have made proforma parties in the writ pretition, AS they have not challenged the

impugned proceedings dated 25.07 '2013' It clearly 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 ASSIS T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CER To

1. The Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy-' lVled.ak District' iil il;;

D'visional officer, Siddipet' ttttgla-t District' ii." iln.iru"i,iondapak Kondapak Mandal' Medak District' 2.

3.

Two CCs to GP for ASSlcrtf-ft'reftii iign Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad. [OUT] ffi ccIJdnr i.'sesnncrRl RAo, Advocate [oP-uc] . 6;; aa io snr nevrr'roER ALKUCHI' Advocate [oPUC] . 6;;;a io snr snrr'lvAs KAPATIA' Advocate [OPUC] . Two CD CoPies 7I SA MP $ ! -.': .'

. 1 .. a:'-

HIGH COURT DATED:3111212024 I $t . STAI q I q \ co 30,.'.i 2t?i t.ia i * D1:,gp1iC

ORDER

WP.No.29463 of 2013 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.

ow['9 t