Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Secretary v. Mailarapu Jangaiah

HIGH COURT FOB THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH GHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT APPEAL NO: 202 OF 2010 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the orders dated 05.02.2010 in W.P.No 3634 of 2007 on the file of the High Court. Between:

'1 . State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad

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

4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar [t'landal, R.R.District (Cause Title is amended as per Court Order dated 24.07.2014 in WAMP No. 2357 ol 20'l4l ...AppELLANTs/pETrrroNERS AND

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 Jangaiah

34. Dappu Dan Raj, S/o. late Ramaiah

35. Anjaiah, S/o. Late Mirjagudem Venkataiah

36. Kdshnaiah, S/o. Late Mirjagudem Venkaiah

37. Nagaiah, S/o. Late l\/irajagudem Venkaiah 38.lt/ailaram Yadagiri, S/o. late Sukkaiah 39.1r/. 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 Reddy District)

46. Syed Latafat Huss rin Razvi, S/o. Syed Shah Tajamul Hussain Razvi R/o.23-2442, Moghulpura, I lyderabad.

47. Mrs, Seyeda Nase :runissa Begum, W/o.Syed Najamuddin Khusro No.23-2-442, 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 the affidavit filed in support c f the petition, the High Court may be pleased tc suspend the operation 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 the affidavit filed in support )f the petition, the High Court may be pleasec to permit the petitioners /appellants h,,rien to construct the compound wall over the land given to the 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 the affidavit filed in support )f the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the petitioner to file the Skel;h of the land allotted in favour of Greyhound:i Organization in Sy. No. 393 to an extr nt of Ac. 326.83 gts of Manchirevula Village, Flajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District anc pass l.A. NO: 1 OF 201s(WAt! P.

Between:

Mailarapq Swamy, S/o. Late Balaiah, Rl/o. Mahchirevula Village,, R;rjendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Re Jdy District.

M. Jai Raj S/o. lat, lMqilaram Venkataiah R/o. Mahchirevula Villagr:, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Rar ga Reddy District.

Uppari Mlthyalu, S b.late Sayanna R/o. Mahchirevula Village, [iajendra Nagar Ir/andal, Ranga Re idy District.

9.. 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, Hyderabad 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.lVlalkaiah

9. Shankaraiah, S/o. Yerenkaiah Veeraiah '10. Mlailaram Yadaiah, S/o. Late Pedda Gangaiah

11. tr/. Raju, S/o Late Pedda Gangaiah

12. Bal Ram, S/o. Late Revella Achaiah '13. Narsimha, S/o. late Revella Achaiah 1 4. Veeraswamy, S/o. Late Revella Chandraiah

15. Raju, S/o. late Revella Chandraiah '16.lt4ailaram Narsimha, S/o. Pedda Gandaiah

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

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

19. Balaiah, S/o. late Venkaiah

20. Chikati Lingamma, W/o. late C.lrilallaiah 21 . Chikati Narsimha, W/o. late C. lvlallaiah 22.Babu Rao, S/o. late C.lt/allaiah

23. Nagaiah, S/o. late C. lt4allaiah

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

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

26. Uppari Veeraiah, S/o. late Narsimha

27. Laxmamma, W/o. Late lvlailaram Jangaiah 28.It/. Narasimha, S/o. Late lt4ylaram Gandaiah 29.1\/. Jangaiah, S/o. late [\/ailaram Gandaiah

30. Yerpula Ramulu, S/o.late Gandaiah 3l.Yerpula Narasimham, Sio. late Gandaiah

32. Dappu [\/uthyalu, S/o.late Laxmaiah

33. Dappu Anjaiah, S/o. late Jangaiah

34. Jaganaiah, s/o. late Jangaiah

35. Dappu Dan Raj, S/o. late Ramaiah

36. Anjaiah, S/o. Late l\/irja g udem Venkataia h

37. Krishnaiah, S/o. Late Mirjagudem Venkaiah

38. Nagaiah, S/o. Late Mirajagudem Venkaiah

39. Mailaram Yadagiri, S/o. late Sukkaiah

40. M. Narsimha, S/o. late Shankaraiah 41 . G.Raju, S/o. Late Babaiah 42.G. Swamy, S/o. Venkaiah 43.Gudepu Swamy, S/o. Sayanna

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

45. G.Raju, S/o. Sayanna (Respondents 5 to 45 are residents of lvlanchirevula Village, Rajendranagar I\,4andal, Ranga Reddy District)

46. Syed Latafat Hussain Razvi, S/o. Syed Shah Tajamul Hussain Razvi No.23-2442, 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 the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing 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 FOR SRI 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 SHARMA AND THE .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 out a::1 order o dated 05.02.2(,10 passed in W.P.No.3634 of 2007 by the learned Single ludge.

2.

The facts of the case reveal that the.Governrrent of Andhra Prade:h sanctioned assignment of Acs.200.00 of Astabal Kanck a of Manchirer.,urla village to the landless poor persons r nder the Special Laoni Ru1es, af-_er regular phodi on 28.1( .1953. The Laoni Rules are framr:d in 1950 in exercise of towers conferred under Section 172'. of t]ne Andhra 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 assignees without the sartction of the Collector. ]'he State Government, hereafter, issued a Revised Assisnment Po1ic1, on 31.0i . 1958 in exercise of powers confet-reci under Section I72 of .he Land Revenue Act, 1317F anci ap,ain the alienation was prohibited. The facts fr-trther reveal that it-r the light of tl Le initial sanction dated 28.10. 19ir3, the Collector initiat :d proceedings ancl the Collector hacl sent a iist 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.

J of time, it is noteworthy to mention that in l.ho,se cases where the lan 1 was assigned by receiving consideration by the State Gov :rnment, the right of transfer was, granted to the assignees In the present case, the respondents in the rvrit appeal \'ere granted temporary pattas free of cost without charg ng any consideration

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

4. It is agai r an undisputed fact that aii those persons, in whose fav< ur the assignment was done, executed a Power of Atto ney in favour of a builder, M.A.Baksh on 14.08.1991 en.powering him to enter into an agreement to se11 in respec. of the property in question and later on 23.10.1992, N.Jangaiah cancelled the General power of Attorney (GPr.) granted in favour of M.A.Baksh. On 27.1O.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 head,quarters and training, along with residential 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 Proceedings. The Revenue Divisional Officer reported that 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 based on the certifi,:ates issued for temporary occupation and accordingly th : names of the individuals r,vere irLco.:porated in pahanis frcm 1962 onu,ards. The Collector eirrived at a conclusion th. Lt the assignment was il1ega1, irregular and liable to be cancelled as Form-G certificate 's/as for temporary oc:upation and thereby implementzttion ol Faisal Patti 1! 67-62 was i1legal. The assignment ought to have been pr rcessed under Assignment Rules, 195g in stead of Laot i Rules, 1950. The assignments were in contravention of ban orders of assignment issued in G.O.Ms.No.12l12, dated 29.06.196L. The Coilect.or also arrived at a c( nclusion that the land has not beetr put to use for cultivi tion and is fallow, thereby Rule 19 of the Laoni Rules I'as violated and the suo molu power was exercised seek ng explanation from the assignees as; to why their assignmeet should not be cancelled.

6.

Mailaram Jangaiah, being aggrieved by the issuance of the show c Luse notice issued by the Collector, dated 28.03.1994, challenged the proceedings before this Court by 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, by order dated 0:.05.1994, disposed of the sard writ petition

directing the petitioner therein to submit explanation to the show cause notice u.ithin a period of one week and the rvrit petitioner Mailaram Jangiah submitted his rep1y, dated 06.05.1994. The District Revenue Officer. on 15.09.1994, after considering the reply of Mailaram Jangaiah refused to interfere with the assignments which took place in 196 1 and held that the assignments were valid in terms of the Laoni Rules.

7. The Collector, Ranga Reddy District .in exercise of powers conferred under Section 166-8 of the Land Revenue Act, 1317F passed Orders on 03.01.1995 suspending the orders of the Tahsiidar, dated 21.10.1961 (by which written permission to occupy land was granted by the Tahsildar under the Laoni Rules) as well as the order of the District Revenue Officer, dated 15.09.7994 on the ground that Form 9(g) certificates under the Laoni Ru1es, 1950 were issued in \967 despite the G.O.Ms.No. i 122, dated 29.06.1961, banning the assignments. The Coilector, Ranga Reddy District, thereafter on 31.07.1995 sought Government's ratification of the Order dated 03.01.1995 and it r,'.as also brought to the notice of the State Gorrernment that the dispr,rted land r,,,as being developed lnto plots by Baksh Estate, orvned by M.A.Baksh, the GPA holder. The State Government on

09.10.1995 w ote to the District Collector bringrng it to the notice of the Collector that the said order rvas passed without issuir g notice, hence it cannot be sustaitred. The Government, therefore, decided to undertake suo motu revision unde' Section 166-C of the Land Revenue Act, 1317F of the rrder passed by the District Revenu,,. Oflicer dated 15,O9 1994. The State Government initiated proceedings a rd on 20.10. 1995 intimated the assignees to Government in suo motu revision sought to r by it and finally, the Governnrent on approach the be undertake ,ified the Order dated 03.01.1995 paLssed by 24.O1.1996 ra the District C rllector, after considering the representation of the assign :es and directed the District Coilector to :nquiry and to pass a final order. At this complete the stage, the assi 3nees filed W.P.Nos.

484 of 1995 and722t of for issuance of writ of certiorari seeking 1996 prayed quashing of t ie proceedings dated 24.O1.1996. l'he writ : ailowed by a common order dated petitions wer d a writ appeal was preferred agarnst the 01.09. 1997 ar order dated 0l .O9.1997 passed in W.P.No.722t of t996 by rt of Andhra Pradesh, i.e., W.A.No.1487 of the Governme 1998. The wri . appeal was dismissed upholding the view taken in the writ petition that the power af su.o motu revision could rot 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, after discussir-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 1999 remanding the matter back to the District Coliector.

L) 9.

The Dist'ict Collector, Ranga Reddy in compliance to the 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 the lresh enquiry was taken up in the matter. A11 the assignees on 28.01.200 submitted their explanations and the Joint Collector pas ;ed an order of resumption on the ground that the ass gnment was irregular and assignees had executed a p( wer of attorney in favour of one A.N{.Baksh, who had conr erted the lands into plots and executed sale deeds. The o'der was passed by the Joint Coll:ctor on 22.12.2OO1. T ee assignees/respondents being a,gglieved by the Order of .he Joint Collector, preferred a u'rit petition No.4812 of 2)02 challenging the order dated 22.12.

2001 and the afore;aid u,rit petition rvas allou,ed on the: ground that the Hon';1e Supreme Court has directed rhe District Collector to I ass an order after remand and it rvas the District Co11ec tor who ll,as supposed to pass an o;:der and the matter wa; remanded to the District Collector to pass a fresh order i fter issuing fresh notice. The Or,ler was passed by thi, Court on 04.04.2002. The District (lollector has thereafte- vide order dated 10.05.

"The assignments said to have been made in terms of Laoni Rules, 1950 after coming into force of the revised assignment policy of 1958 is vitiated by law ar-rd does not have any validity. ...

The Village of Manchirevula falls within the 1O miles belt area wherein assignment is prohibited by G.O.Ms.No.1 122, dated 26.06.1961 since assignment made in 196 i shail be deemed to be made in accordance with Rules in force. ... Section 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition ol Transfers) Act 1977 states that no landless poor shall transler any assigned land and by entering into the GPA said provision stands violated. By entering into GPA, there was intention on part of the assignees to sell the land and they 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 for which they were originally assigned."

10. The assignees being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Collector preferred writ petitions, i.e., W.P.Nos. 13165 and 23639 of 2003 and this Court has a11ou,ed the writ petitions by an order dated 2 \.O4.2006. Another important aspect of the case is that while the litigation u,'as going on, possession of the entire land was handed over to the Special Police Force (Greyhounds) on 03.06.2003 b1, duly drawing panchanamas and Academy/Fire Ranging and other facilities have been developed by greyhounds, which is an elite armed force to combat naxalite and other terrorists. The assignees, as they were aggrieved by the observation granting liberty to the Government lor cancellation ol assignment in violation of conditions,

tl preferred Revi:w Petitions i.e., W.P.M.P.No.15642 of 2006 in W.P.No.13155 of 2003 and the said review petition was dismissed, me aning thereby the State was at a liberty to cancel the asr ignment in case of violation of assignment c or-rdition s.

11. This Cor rt while allowing the W.p.Nos.13165 and 23639 of 20C 3 has held that the alienation of iand in contravention of the Rules by execution of GpA cloes not survive 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 in contravention tf the existing rul.es and the issue need not be gone into r early after forty years as those Rules were subsequently rLmended substituting some other RuLies and that could no' have been a ground to exercise suo motu review. Howevtr, this Court granted liberty to the State Government t ) cancel the assignment if there is any contravention of the conditions of the assignment. The review was filt d only because liberty was grantec, to the State Governm 3nt to pass an order in case of contravention of the conditio rs of the assignment order and it is again a matter of fac that seventy-one sale deeds have been executed in re spect of the land in question bv tire GpA holder.

72, the appellant/State Government keeping in view the liberty granted in the matter vide Judgment dated 21.O4.2006 passed in W.P,Nos.13165 and 23639 of 2003 issued notices to the landholders as u,e11 as to the purchasers ir-rforming them that the sale is impermissible and void as thev are in contravention of Section 3(2) of the Act No.9 of 1977. The assignees submitted a reply on 29.12.2006 and thereafter. the Mandal Revenue Olficer initiated proceedings on 27 .O1 .2OO7 for resuming the lands. As already stated earlier, the notices were issued to al1 assignees as u,ell as to all purchasers and finally al order was passed resuming the land in exercise of powers conferrecl under Section 4 of the Act No,9 of 1977. The assignees again preferred a writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.3634 of 2OO7 challenging the proceedings dated 27.O1.

2OO7 and contended before this Court that the sale deeds u,ere executed prior to the Judgment delivered in W.P.Nos.13165 and 23639 of 2003 as this Court has alreadv decided violations committed i.e., sale of land u,ithout permission of the Collector. It was pleaded that notice dated 1 1.12.

ti reveal the da1 -- of sale, name of vendor or purcheiser and extent of land so1d. It was also contended that the power of attorney was , ancelled on in October 2002, cancellation of power of att, )rney was published in the news paper, cancellation tc ok place before any sa_le was effected and the power 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 been liled by the l{andal Revenue Officer in W.p.No.3634 ol 2OO7 and the luthorisation to the Mandal Revenue Officer has been bro rght on record and the execution of sale deeds was al ro verified. The learned Single Jurige has allowed the wit petition by an order dated 05.02.12010 on the ground th lt the lls between the parties involved has attained final ty in the earlier round of litigation i.e., W.P.No.13165 of 2003 and batch and therefore, issuing notice on the ',ery same grounds amounts to r€rs judicata. The learned Si rgle Judge has also set aside the order dated 10.05.2003 on the ground that the assignment which was made forty ye€ rs ago could not have been looked ireto and the allegation hat the petitioners were not cultivating the land and not ir possession also could not have been looked into 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 '3.1994 and the orders passed in pursuance to the said showcause 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 by an order dated 21.4.2006. Therefore, the 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:

ti "The facts which are not in dispute are the petitioners and the predecessors in 'st have been in possession ar-rd enjoyment e lands right from the year 1953. Their ssion came to be recognized and orders of rment came to be issued on 21.10.1961.

)istrict Revenue Officer exercising powers - section 166-8 sought to cancel tht:

rments on two grounds by issuing a sholvnotice. The two grounds are: firstlv, aJter luction of Assignment Rules, 1958, tht:

Rules, 1950 became inoperative an<1 bre the assignments made under the ruleri r were not in exercise are invalid and dly, the assignees resorted to alienating lands contrary to the terms of the rment. For the sake of brevity, i ma.,, luce the operative portion of the shownotice, and it is thus: that inter of tl poss assit The undr assig CAUS intro Laon there whic SE CO] the assig repr( CAUS "ln view of the abol,e irregularities committed bl the Subordinate Officer. the matter taken ot_ sLo rlolu rerrsion under se(tlur,s 166 B ol A.P (T.Al L.R. Acr, 1317 F.

Therefore, Sir Mailarap Mallaiah sio Yellaiah r/ o Manchirevula is called upon to explain the reasons lvhy the alleged permission granted for temporary occupation of Government land and subsequentlv implemented in Faisalpatti, should not be cancelled and their names should not be deleted from the village pahanies lor the period from 1963-64 to til1 date, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, Failure to offer any explanation would tantamount acceptance of the above mentioned irregularities and it would be concluded that the alieged assignment is irregular, illegal and in contrary with the rules then existed and orders will be passed to cancei the alleged assignment and for deleting the names from the pahanies'.

Undisputedly, the lands came to be red to the assignees by virtue of their in possession of the lands and the s of the assignees have been mented in the revenue records through Patti for the year L96L-62 and their s have been brought in the revenue ls and continued as pattadars. 11 can be ,,ithout an_r, icar of contraciiction that tl-re have been in possession of the ners/their prcdecessors in rnteresr crrer a assig being nam( implt Faisa nam( recol sard 1ar-r d s Petitl,

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 the yeat 1961-62.

The principal ground on which assignments sought to be cancelled by invoking the review powers under section 166-8 of the Act is execution of GPA by the assignees in favour of the predecessor in interest. As on this day, the GPA holder is not alive and even if atry power of attorney exists, it ceases with his death. Therefore, no cause survives for the District Revenue Officer to take suo motu review, The other question is whether the assignments made in favour of the petltioners and their predecessor in interest is contrary to the Rules then in existence. That issue is not required to be examined after a lapse of nearly 4O years. The Laoni patta certificates came to be issued in accordance with the provisions of Laoni Rules, 1950. Merely because those Rules came to be ar:rended by substituting some olher rules cannot be a ground to exercise suo motu review bv the Distriit 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 shcwcause 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 Revenue 1tr6- Il ol Olficer or the District Collector under Section the 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 appearing for 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 conditions imposed 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

l9 rnment is a.l.ways at liberty to initiate ;sary proceedings. If the contention of the ed Senior Counsel is accepted, it would Govr nece learr on the powers of the Government to cancel and in case the land is not used for the fette lhe pur!

rse for which it was assigned, I do not se any valid ground to revierv the )rder passed in W.P. No. 13165 of 2003 date I 21.4.2006. Accordrngly, this revierv petit on is dismissed".

learned Judge earlier observed that this will le the authorities from taking action. :f tLLere travention of the conditions imposed in the : patta. This must be deemed as, "if ,tny The not preclu is any cor assignmer future con grounds o are being passing fir petition, ( -ravention is made and not otherwise". All the r which the earlier litigation attained linality raised again by way of issuing notir:e and Lal orders, which are impugned in this rvrit n the very same grounds. Therefore, the s have no authority under the law to rake up which are already settled. Issuance of any ice as to canceilation of assignment on the responden the issues further no c1d cause of action does not survive au.rd it is he face of the order passed by this Courr in 3165 of 2003. In none of the proceedings r lhe order in W.P. No, 13165 of 2OO3 is fiesh cause of action has been citr:d tor very same affront in W.P. No.

issued aft passed, nr brought to the decis Construct the notice ol this Court. Here, it is apt I o rr:I'er ln of the Supreme Court in Forward on Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri iC 39 1), r,"'herein it is held:

(ArR 1986 "ln view of S. 1 1, Expln.lV it could not be sard hat the earlier judgment would not operate as re; judicata as one of the grounds taken irthe s rbsequent petition was conspicuous by rts abser ce in the eariier perition. An adjudicatior is 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

2l assignmer ts made prior to 1958 and no such assignmer t can be cancelled basing on 1958 Ruies. r, the contentions of the learned Special rt Pleader representing the learned Advot:ate at the assignment itsell was irregular and the t conditions were violated in vier.l, of issuance r favour of one Allabaksh and since tht: en tire banized, it does not serve the purpose for as allotted and it is only heredrtable and not nd no permissions for the sales were obtained all irrelevant since those issues were already -rality in the earlier proceedings.- Further, no left which arises for consideration in this,rrit Thu Governme General tl assignmer of G.P.A. i area is u rvhich it r,, alienable t etc. , u.,ere attained fi issue was petition, ir the previous proceedings.

Furt ter, from the facts noticed above, it is ctear that the e; Ltire cause of action was sought to be dug up for the pu 'pose of denying the legitimate compeusar ion to lr,hich the petitioners are entitled for, il land acquisitior proceedings are initiated for the purposr: ol acquiring the land for locating Academy for police Departmer t or to deny ex gratia to u,hich the petition ers are entitle( for.

For all the above reasons, the impugr-red proceeding s No.B/289l 1999 dated 27.1 .2OO7 are iiable to be set i side and they are accordingly set aside. 'lhe writ petiti rn is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs."

14. This Court has carefully has carefully gone through the facts on r( cord, the statutory provisions goverlting the field and has i lso heard the learned counsel for the parties at 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 subsection (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 housesite on the date of such commencement. Consequence ofbreach of provisions ofsection 3:-

1. If, in a ny case, the District Collector or anv o1_her officer not below the ran of a Mandal Revenue Officer, authorised by him in this behalf, is satisfied that the provisions ol sub-section (1) ol section 3, have been contravene I in respect of any assigned land, he may. by order- (a) take po rsession ol the assigned ladn after evicting the person in lossession after such )r Mandal Revenue written notice Officer may Collector as the dt:em reasonable and any crop or other produce raised on such land shal1 l,e iiable to forfeiture and any building or other constructic I erected or anything deposited, thereon shall also be for:ited, if not removed by hi, after such notice, as the Co lector or the Mandal Revenue Officer may direct. Forf :itures under this section shall be adjusted by the Collectc r or Mandal Revenue Officer anci any proport). forfeited sh all be disposed of as the Collector or Mandal Revenue Oi icer may direct; and;

(b) (i) reas: ign the said resumed land, other rhan those lands/area as may be notified by the Government lrom time to tim : in public interest and for public purpose, to the transfe. ee who purchased the land in good faith eind lor valuabl . consideration on or before 31"t December, 2017, subj .ct to the condition that he/ she is landless poor persor , and is in occupation of the land by using the said for agricuiture or as house site, as on the datt: ol ta k ing poss.ssion by eviction;

Provided th 1t the reassignment in case of transferee slrall be limited t r only such an extent that the total holding of the reassigr ee including any other land held by him/ her does not ex:eed 5.00 Acres dry land and 2 rZ Acres rvet land:

Provided fi Lrther that where the transferee who has purchased .he land and got reassignment of it, or lis Iegal heir, t; ansfers the reassigned land, the land shall be resumed fo' assignment to the other eligible landless poor:

(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

I hall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of Collector s Ld il satisfied that the resistance or obsrruction rt any just cause and that such resistance or L still continues, may issue a warrant for the case ar was witho obstructio:

Le said person and on his appearance contmit arrest of t him to clor Mandal R, thirty dal e custody in the office of the collector or of any venue Officer for such period not exceerling s as may be necessary to prevent the e of such obstrucrion or resistance or may with a warrant in the form of schedule lor :nt in the civil jail of the District for the like continuan, send him imprisonrr:

period:

hat no person so committed cir impriscned Provided under this sections 1 section shall be liable to be prosecuted under 13, 186 or 1 88 of the lndian Penai Code in respect of

(3) Any he same facts.

lerson who unauthorisedly re-enters and ry land from which he was evicted unrler this occupies a a1l be punished with imprisonment for a term extend upto six months or r,vith fine upto thousand or with both.

ier passed in revision under Section 4-B and such order, the decision in appeal under and subject to the said orders in revisron and r order passed under sub-section (1), shall be eall not be questioned in any court of law and on shall be granted by any court in respe<:t of ling taken or about to be taken by an1, ofllcer y or Government in pursuance of an)' power section, sL which ma rupees live

(4) Any or subject to section 4A appeal, an final and s no injunct any proce€ or authori y or under this Act.

purposes of this section, where any assigned conferred I

(5) For th< land is in rossession of a person, other than the original his legai heir, ir shall be presumed, until rhe proved, that there is a contravention ol the rf sub-section (1) of section 3,"

assignee o contrary is provisions

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

(2) Every Revenue Officer lower in rank to a Collector or Settlement Commissioner may call for the records of a case or proceedings for a subordinate department and satisfy himself that order or decision passed or the proceeding taken is regular, legal and proper and if, in his opinion, any order or decision or, proceedings should be modified or annulled, he shall put up the file of the case with his opinion to the Collector or Settlement Commissioner, as the case may be.

Thereupon the Collector or Settlement Commissioner may pass suitable order under the provisions of subsection ( 1.) .

(3) the original order or decision or an authentic copy of the original order or decision sought to be revised shall be liled along with every application for revision. 166-C. Review by Government:- The Government may, 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,

)7 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 the enforcemr 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;

(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;

(c) Orr itted (d) On itted

the assessment of land revenue and the alteration (e) and revision of such assessment and the recovery of land revenue;

(l the disposal of attached land;

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

the maximum amount of fine leviable under (e) Section 57;

the purpose for which land assessed for land (h) revenue may or may not be used and to grant permission to use agricultural land for nonagricultural purPoses; issuing of notice in the matter of enhancement of (i) rent and eviction from land by the holder to the Asami or bv the Asami to the holder under Section prescribing the area of a number under Section 79 U) 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;

the interest or penalty chargeable if land revenue (k) is not paid in time;

regulating the conduct of survey and settlement (l) and land revenue and prescribing the notice to be issued under Section 84 before the inlroduction of settlement;

omitted (m) Omitted (n) the division of survey numbers into pote-numbers and the assessment of pote-numbers under (o) Section 89-B;

the construction, laying out, maintenance and (p) repair of boundary marks;

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

( l9 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 calling upor him to comply with the conditions n'hich he 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:11-12-2OO6 FORM-I Notice Under Rule of The Andhra Pradesh Assiqned Lands (Prohibitron of Transfers) Rules. 1977 To Sri 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-1962 and their r ames brought in to the Revenue Records. It is other assi noticed that Sri Mailaram Jangaiah and 2l 3nees in respect of assigned lands bearing 20 to an ext. Of Acrs 143-OO sitlr.rted ar rla Village, Rajendranagar Manclal have a General Power of Artorney vrde 18/91, Dt. 14 lo8l199 1 in favour of the Sri hi S/o Alli Saheb in turn he executed ,..ari,tr-rs in favour of 71 of Purchasers, rn the lands said survey number, the details of the sale nished by the Jt. Sub-Registrar- II., R.R I)isrricr Sy.No.393 Manchirev executed Doct.No.l l Allah Bak:

sale deed covered b1 deed as fu are as folk ws:- Sale D cd No 585 92 tO3, /92 IO3( t92 237t t92 238( t92 SaL: Deed \o ) tt27 8 ,92 SI, NO Sl.Nc, Sale Deed No Sl. No '25 5469192 s4io /92 ltt423 192 547 I 10124 t92 2B )l )o425,192 5967 192 s96a /92 5 969 92 ,I :) 10426',92 ].:

) (t4 27 9l {) 237t /92 84a 92 850 92 95r 92 4t 5', /92 416, /92 416: /92 4431 /92 !.r l b r) 6807 /92 5b 6AOa /92 l(r441 1(,735 ,_' l 6809192 t c736,',92 6a1O /92 ()811 9',2 i7 6812192 t\ 6at3 /92 68t4 /92 ,r0 7311 lc)2 4l 7343 /92 7344192 I O273 9:

10275 t1 t2 r3 | 311!1e3 3lt2 3lr3 t)0 o1'':

1.+ _ 3115/93 443- 192 .13 3.]17 .t3 3 t18 3119 t3 3120 l3 9.1 1i r8 :0 )) 2) 4434 /92

413. t92 4434 t9,2 443( t92 443i t92 1027 4 / 92 7A 545i /92 -ti ) o276 t)) ,) 2+ 4iJ to277 192 The sale transactions above shown are impermiss ble and void as same are in contravenrior: of the provis on of sub-section (2) of secrion_3 ol the Andhra Pr rdesh assigned land (prohibition of Tr.rnsier) Act 1997. \s per rhe prohibition of the said Act rhere is prohibitior: 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 assignees are contravened the provision of sub-section

(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 assigned lar-rd should not be resumed back in respect of Sy No. 3S3/ 1 to 393 l20 situated at Manchirevula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal for the scheduled land as sholr,belou,.

THE SCHEDULtr En tire extent Occupied Extent Nature of Occupation / Patta Description of land Village Sy. No.

SubDivision Acre Cts Acre Gts l Assignmen I Poramboke Nii Nil Manchirerula 393/ 1 to 393 120 DY.Collector & Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal.

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

JJ

18. Meaning thereby in respect of assigned lands, sale deeds were exr cuted which were impermissible rn law. The aforesaid issu: was never the subject matter ol' earlier litigation and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could have bet n held by the learned Single Judge that the proceedings dt ted 27 .Ol.2OO7 arc hit by res jud.icata.

19. Another mportant aspect of the case is that this Court while deciding the earlier writ petition i.e., W.P.Nos. i 3165 and 23639 of 2OO3 and C.C.No.163 of 2004 has hel I that the Government was at iiberty to proceed with t re cancellation of the assignment in case of vioiation of co-rditions. Paragraph 15 of the Or.de:, dated 21.O4.2006, p rssed in W.P.Nos.13165 and 236.39 ol2003 and C.C.No.16 3 of 2004 is reproduced as under:- " 15. In v :w of the above discussion, I find that :he shou, cau e notice issued by the District Rcvenue OfTicer, R.l .District is not legal and proper. When otrce the show c tuse notice is set aside, the basis for passing the order mpugned in the writ petitions by the Jcint Collector c lnnot be said to be well founded. Bef,:re parting the case, I deem it appropriate to observe that if there is a. / contravention of the conditions imposed in the assign nent order, the Government is always at Iiberty to cancel the same in accordance r,,,.it h r_he provisions 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 the High Court. Meaning thereby, the order granting liberty 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.

( "D.Dis No, \618524 l60 Hyderabad District Hyderabad.

West Tahsildar O tlice Dt.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. Mylarapu Pedda Gar: laiah S/o Venkaiah resident of Manchirevula village, Ta rsil Hyderabad West, Hyderabad distr.ict, ro occupv the following land and to cultivate the sarne, rill the phodi r ork is completed.

1. V .lage name

2. Tr luk :Manchirevr-tla : Hyderabad West : 393 : 326.28 : Ac.7.06 Gts : Rs.7. 15 : Kancha :Dry

3. S..No.

4. T( tal exten t

5. E; tent given under patta

6. Cr ss

7. Ni ture of land

8. Cl rssification Sri Iv ylarapu pedda Gandaiah has to pay Rs.7. 15 per _vear rom 196l -62 for the land granteci ior occupalion -inder this permit as assessment.

After the podhi is completed the area a:rd assessment are both fixed by the Dept. of Land Re,cords (Survey anc Settlement). The pattadar is bond ro pay the assessment so fixed, but this change will take effect orrly from the ye rr following in which such change has been made as a .esult of the completion of phodi work by the Dept. of Lar d Records.

(ln th, case of land granted as not transferable) lThe grantee is not empowered to transfer the occupanr:y without th( sanction previously obtained from the Coilector. T ris permission to occupy shall not conf<:r the right to min: on the land or collect minerals therelior:-r

The rights on the toddy tr€es will vest with the Government.

Sd/ -Thahasildar 24.r0.1961 Hyde 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 as also under the Revised Policy published in 1958, the alienation rf the assigned land was prohibited. While under the ,aoni Rules, 1950, the alienation or transfer without tL: previous sanction of the Collector was prohibited, under the Revised Policy, it was clearly provided t rat though the assigned lands would be heritable, t rey would not be transferred...

This rrder was examined by the Collector who u,as of the opin on that the District Revenue Offlcer had r-rot examined certain vital aspects of the matter and consequenl Ly by his order dated 3rd of JanuaD,, 19q5, he susper ded the operation of the order dar-ed 15.9. 1994, passed b1, the District Revenue Officei'. Tris order rvas r hallenged by the respondents in Writ Petitior-l No.484 of 1995.

In t re meantime, the Collector' \\'rote to lhe (lovernmer t on 31st ol July, 1995 to ratify the acrron indicated ly him in his order dated 3rd of January, 1995. By order dated 24th ol January,, 1996, the Governmer t ratified the Collector's order dated 3rd of January, 1995 and directed him to procc.ed u,ir.h thc enquiry a rd pass final order. This order of rhe Governmer t was challenged by the respondents in W'rit Petition No 7221196. By a common judgment dated Ist of Septemb:r, 1997, a learned Single Judge of the High Court allov ed both the Writ Petitions and qLlashcd rhe order of th( Government dated 24th of January, 1996. lt may be st rted that in the counter-affidavit, liled on behalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh (appellants, it was, inter alia, stated that rhe respondent; had alienated the lands in favour of ei third person. Th:y had converted the agricultural lands into non-agricu tural lands and had also appointed a General Power of At orney in favour of a developer, lbr det,eloping and 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 proceedings and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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 nonalienation and therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in law and facts.

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

l9 District Magist.atel is not applicable to the facts of the present case. n the present case, there was a categorical condition of n< n-alienation and the Hon'b1e Supreme Court has held, as s tated earlier, that the assignment of lands were prohibite i both under Laoni Rules and the Revised Assignment Rr:les and therefore, the learned Single Judge has again errt d in iaw and on facts in allowing the writ petition.

25. In the car e of Letter sent from plot No,33g (supra), the issue of assign:nent and the applicabiiity of the provisions of the Act No.! of 1977 has aiso to be looked itrto. It was considered by the Division Bench as to u,hether the assignment mz de under Rule 9 of the Laoni Rules by way of assignment after collection of market value would be covered by the provisions of the Act No.9 of 1977 and a coordinate Ben:h of this Court in paragraph 49 has held as under:- "49. \ re are of the view that provisions of Act No.9 of 7977 w l1 not be applicable to the cases u,h<.re assignments were made on collection of market value or under Circu ar 14 except it u,ere granted to the landless poor 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 2008 (5) ALD 626 : 1008 (5)Al-1 j l-r

value and the assignment was done in favour of landless persons without collection of market value, the question of 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 assigned on payment of upset price equal to sixteen times 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 the assignment, z nd by no stretch of imaginatic,n, the proceedings dr.ted 27.O1.2OO7 could not have been set aside by the ler rned Single Judge.

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

31. That the land resumed is being used ior public purpose in terres of the Act No.9 of 1977. The land is in possession and is being used by Greyhounds force vuhich is an elite force deaiing with anti-naxai operations. It is imparting trair ing to commandos and to the solcliers of central armed police force who are deployed to curb naxalism. The possession of the land was taken by the Government on 03.06.2003 and the present land has been notified vide C.O.Ms.No.1835, dated Il,t2.2OO6 by the

Government for public interest ald therefore, the Order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed.

32. Much has been argued by learned courisel for the respondents before this Court that in respect of their entitlement stating that the land is governed by the condition of patta issued under Rule 9(g) of the Laoni Rules. The argument is certainly misplaced as Rule 9(g) contemplates two conditions, viz., tine lands are put to auction and the party to whom the land is allotted sha11 deposit 25ok of the vaiue of the land and the auction amount of the trees thereon and the balance 75ok of the deposit within fifteen days thereafter. In the present case, no such exercise took place. The lands so allotted are free of cost to landless persons and therefore, once the la-nds were allotted free of cost with a 'non-alienation' clause, the appellants have rightly passed the Order resuming the land and allotting the same to Greyhounds.

33. Arrother undisputed aspect of the case is that all land owners gave a power of attorney in 199 I to M.A.Baksh who executed various sale deeds and even though the pou,er ol attorney was cancelled later on after execution of the sale deeds, it does not have any consequence since the sale

+i 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 REGISTRAR e1, SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1.

2.

J.

4.

5.

6.

7.

R 9.

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

I.IIGiH COURT DATED: :1111212021 + t""

( \ ':, iA i€ o e- :) |.

w_2 O6JAN2 )'

I j:,:i, i\ a)

JUDGMENT

WA.No.2l02 of 2010 ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS -S