Telangana High Court
The Collector, R.R.Dist 4 Others vs Smt. C Anilaja, Hyderabad 4 Others on 30 December, 2020
Author: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, B.Vijaysen Reddy
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.1509 and 1510 of 2017
Date: 30.12.2020
BETWEEN
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District,
and others.
... APPELLANTS
AND
Smt. Chavali Anilaja and others.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
GP for Revenue
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Nageshwara Rao Pappu
The Court made the following:
2
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy) These two appeals arise out of the common order dated 01.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP.No.2649 of 2010 and WP.No.21088 of 2012.
2. WP.No.2649 of 21010 was filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 20.11.2009 in case No.D1/7791/2008 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. WP.No.21088 of 2012 was filed challenging order of resumption dated 08.02.2002 in proceedings No.B/1250/2001 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petitions.
4. The brief facts of the case pleaded by the petitioners are as under:
(a) The petitioner No.1 purchased an extent of Ac.1.00 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.82/1996 dated 04.01.1996;
the petitioner No.2 purchased an extent of Ac.2.00 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.3815 of 1997 dated 05.12.1997; the petitioner No.3 purchased an extent of 0.20 hectares under a registered sale deed bearing document No.8408 of 1997 dated 05.12.1997. The lands so purchased are part of Sy.No.176/2, 3 and 4, situated at Aziznagar Village, Grampanchayat, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
(b) The petitioners claimed that the land in the above survey number originally belonged to one Abdul Hussaini and one Mohd. Khaja. Their names were recorded in pahanies for the year 1966. There were multiple transactions and the title devolved from the original vendors to various persons under different registered sale 3 deeds right from 1965. The petitioner purchased the lands from one B. Krishna Sagar, S/o. Dharamarao, who was survived by his sons B. Vidyasagar, B. Krishna Sagar and B. Ramsagar. The vendors of the petitioners have got title to the lands by virtue of entries in pahanies. From the year 1966-67, the petitioners have been requesting the authorities to enter their names in the revenue records and to issue the pattadar passbooks. Meanwhile, the petitioners found suspicious discrepancies in the revenue records; the Government started claiming rights over the lands in the year 2001.
(c) Aggrieved by the action of the Government, the petitioners preferred a revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in the Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, before the Joint Collector for correction of entries in the revenue records from 2001 to 2007. The Joint Collector dismissed the revision petition under impugned order dated 20.11.2009 by recording that the lands are classified as "Kharij Khata" or "Laoni Patta".
(d) However, the petitioners have pleaded that the impugned order of the Joint Collector is contrary to the proceedings conducted by the Special Deputy Collector (LA-General), the land acquisition authority, who issued gazette notification dated 11.12.1986 published in the Deccan Chronicle English daily newspaper wherein part of the lands of the vendors of the petitioners were acquired. In fact, they have been paid a compensation vide cheque No.047773 dated 17.01.1989. The said lands were shown as patta lands in the year 1954 reflecting the name of the original owner, Abdul Hussaini. The vendors of the petitioners were in continuous possession of the land.
5. In the counter filed by the respondent No.2 in WP.No.2469 of 2010, it is stated that:
4
(a) Originally the land in Sy.No.176, total extent of Ac.220.37 guntas situated at Aziz Nagar Village of Moinabad Mandal is a Government land classified as 'Gairan Sarkari'. As per the faisal patti for the year 1961-62, the entire Government land in respect of Sy.No.176 was assigned in favour of fifty-four beneficiaries.
Accordingly, the Government land in Sy.No.176/2 (Ac.2.23 guntas), Sy.No.176/3 (Ac.2.02 guntas) and Sy.No.176/4 (Ac.2.33 guntas) was assigned to Abdul Hussaini, Mohd. Khaja and Pasha Miyan in the year 1960-61. The said fact was reflected in the pahani 1975-76. But the original assignees sold away the lands in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. Noticing these facts, the respondent No.4 initiated resumption proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The respondent No.4 resumed the lands into Government custody vide proceedings No.B/1250/01 dated 08.02.2002. The same was subsequently handed over to the APHB (DIL) on 10.04.2007, along with other resumed lands. Since then, the subject land is under the custody of APHB.
(b) Instead of filing an appeal before the competent authority, on resumption orders, passed by the MRO, the petitioners have preferred a revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, which was dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.11.2009. Though as per the land acquisition proceedings No.F/697/87 dated 31.12.1998, Mohd Khaja and Abdul Galib are referred as pattedars and Shiv Sagar as occupant in respect of lands in Sy.No.176/3/2 (Ac.0.05 guntas), which was acquired for laying pipeline, as per the revenue records and faisal patti for the year 1961-62, the land in Sy.No.176, total extent of Ac.220.37 guntas, is classified as 'Gairan Sarkari'. The land was assigned to fifty-four beneficiaries in the year 1960-61 for agricultural purpose. 5 The petitioners, without availing remedy of appeal, have directly filed revision before the respondent No.2.
6. Having come to know about resumption proceedings, from the counter filed in WP.No.2649 of 2010, the petitioners filed WP.No.21088 of 2012 challenging the resumption order dated 08.02.2002. The petitioners stated that the resumption order was passed by the MRO unilaterally without following the provisions of law. The petitioners neither had knowledge of resumption orders, nor any notice have been issued and served on them.
7. In the counter affidavit filed in WP.No.21088 of 2012, the respondent No.2 stated that Form-I notices were issued to the petitioners. Subsequently, orders dated 08.02.2002 were passed resuming the lands to the Government; later, the lands were allotted to APHB. The petitioners have not filed sale deeds to show that the lands have been purchased by them from the assignees. In any case, the lands are assigned lands. Thus, the sale transactions are hit by Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The said Act is a special enactment. It, thus, overrides the other laws. Moreover, the compensation awarded to the petitioners cannot be taken as approval of their title. For, originally the lands belonged to the Government; the lands were assigned to landless poor in the year 1961. Hence, any sale deeds executed in contravention of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 are null and void.
8. On appreciation of the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. According to the learned Single Judge no notice was issued to the petitioners before resumption orders were passed. Therefore, the procedure, which is mandatory under Section 4 of the A.P. 6 Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 calling for claims before resumption of land, has not been followed by the respondent authorities. The learned Single Judge also pointed out that the names of the assignees have been shown in the pattadar column continuously for a period of thirty-seven years. Hence, the authorities cannot exercise suo motu powers for correcting entries after a period of thirty-seven years. Thus, the resumption is not legally permissible.
9. Heard Mr. C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the appellants, and Mr. Nageshwara Rao Pappu, the learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners.
10. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the names of the petitioners are shown in notices issued in Form-I under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 1977. Thus, the learned Single Judge committed error in concluding that no notice was served on the petitioners. He further submits that indisputably the subject lands are assigned lands, which are allegedly purchased by the petitioners. Even if the said purchase is made under registered sale deeds, the same is hit by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. Hence, the sale transactions are void. Further, the learned Single Judge could not have set aside the impugned proceedings on the ground of unreasonable delay. For, what constitutes unreasonable delay depends on facts and circumstances of each case. The petitioners, who have purchased assigned lands, cannot claim any legal rights over the lands. The payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act does not amount to accepting title of petitioners, as provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 have got overriding effect.
7
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not served with any notice before passing the impugned resumption order. Even if the lands are assigned lands, the sale of the said lands is per se not prohibited under law unless there is a condition of non-alienation in the assignment pattas. The assignment pattas were not placed on record by the Government. Even the MRO did not bother to look into the assignment pattas. In the absence of assignment pattas, available on record, it cannot be assumed that the sale transactions of so-called assigned lands are hit by the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. In the resumption order dated 08.02.2002, passed by the MRO, though it is stated that notices have been served on the petitioners under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 1977, there is no proof filed regarding the said assertion.
12. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue has drawn attention of this Court to the notice, at page Nos.129 to 131 of material papers, issued in Form I of Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibited of Transfer) Rules, 1977.
13. It appears that the aforesaid three notices did not form part of the record before the learned Single Judge. In any case, there is no proof of service of these notices. It appears the notices have been sent through RPAD, but proof of service thereafter through registered post is not evidenced from any of the documents relied upon by the learned Government Pleader.
14. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader that the notices were served upon the petitioners is clearly untenable. Further, it is evident from the record that the lands have 8 been initially sold in the year 1965/1966 as per the contents of two sale deeds dated 23.02.1967 filed as Exs.P13 and P14. The purchasers, from the original assignees in the year 1966, subsequently sold the lands to third parties in the year 1967 under registered sale deed. Subsequently, there were other sale transactions in the year 1997. The assigned lands, which were sold in 1966/1967 i.e. prior to coming into force of the Act 9 of 1977 per se cannot be treated as void transactions. If assigned lands have been purchased by landless poor persons for the purpose of agriculture, the same are protected under Section 3(5) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977.
15. As borne out from the record, the original purchasers from the assignees in the year 1966 and subsequent purchasers have not been issued notices. The petitioners, who purchased in the year 1966-67, are alleged to have violated the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. Unless it is clear that initial sale in the year 1966 is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, an automatic conclusion cannot be drawn that subsequent sales made in the year 1996-97 are hit by the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The violation, if any, is not by the sale deed executed in the year 1996-97. In fact, the violation, if any, was under the sale deeds executed in the year 1965/1966. Initiation of resumption proceedings against the petitioners without issuing notices to the original purchasers of assigned lands in the year 1965/1966 is arbitrary and unsustainable. Even if the initial violation is taken from the year 1965/1966, it is almost after more than thirty-five years the resumption proceedings were issued. Hence, the resumption orders, 9 having been passed thirty-five years from the date of first set of transactions in the year 1966, are arbitrary.
16. This Court in DASARI NARAYANA RAO v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, SERILINGAMPALLY, RR DISTRICT [2010 (4) ALT 655] held that the resumption order passed without considering the assignment patta and conditions therein is illegal and void. The argument of the learned Government Pleader that the lands are, admittedly, assigned lands and after G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958 came into force, non-alienation was a condition precedent for assignment of lands and thus, purchase of lands by the petitioners is in violation of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 is untenable since the resumption proceedings, if any, were to be issued, the same could be done only after issuing prior notice to all the purchasers of the land right from the year 1965/1966. Admittedly, the title of the land has changed several hands and original purchasers in the year 1965/1966 have not been put on notice. So also there is no material to show that the petitioners were put on notice; thus, the proceedings impugned is illegal and arbitrary.
17. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ appeals. Therefore, both these appeals stand dismissed. The common order dated 01.02.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.Nos.2649 of 2010 and 21088 of 2012, is hereby affirmed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________________ RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, CJ __________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J December 30, 2020/DSK