Telangana High Court
Smt. Uma Devi vs The State Of Telangana on 6 April, 2026
1
LNA, J
WP.No.8105 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.8105 OF 2018
Dated:06.04.2026
Between:
Uma Devi
...Petitioner
And:
The State of Telangana, reptd., by
its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Hyderabad and four others.
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders, dated 22.04.2017, passed by respondent No.3 in Revision Case No.E2/771/2015 and to quash the same and for consequential relief.
2. Heard Sri Vedula Vekata Ramana, learned senior counsel, appearing for M/s Bhardwaj Associates, learned counsel-on-record for petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
2
LNA, J WP.No.8105 of 2018
3. The brief facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, as averred in the writ affidavit, are that her mother-in-law, viz., Kunni Bai, during her lifetime, purchased the land admeasuring Acs.3-25 guntas in Survey Nos.151/8/1 and 151/8/2, situated at Himayathnagar Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from Kancherla Pentaiah and Gangaiah through registered sale deed bearing document Nos.1170/65 and 1171/65 dated 27.12.1965; that ever since the date of purchase, she was in possession and enjoyment of the land and that her name was entered in the revenue records and Rythu Passbooks were issued in her favour in the year 1982.
3.1. It is further averred that Kancherla Pentaiah and Gangaiah, the vendors of the petitioner's mother-in-law, were in occupation of the said land from 1955-58, and recognizing their long-standing possession, their names were entered in the Sesala Pahani prepared under the Record of Rights 1358F. The Government had also issued permission under Rule 9(g) of the Laoni Rules, 1950, vide proceedings No.A9/870/1960 and No.A9/13555/60, dated 18.12.1961, to them and they continued in possession until execution of the registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioner's mother-in-law, who, during her lifetime, 3 LNA, J WP.No.8105 of 2018 executed a Will in favour of the petitioner, and after her death, the petitioner succeeded to the subject land and has been in possession of the same.
3.2. It is further averred that earlier, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition Nos.5781 and 11588 of 2002, which were disposed of on 03.06.2009, remanding the matter to the MRO, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for conducting fresh enquiry; that in compliance of the said order, respondent No.5 again issued notice in Form-II vide proceedings No.B/560/2011 dated 23.06.2011 under Section 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the POT Act'), calling upon the petitioner to explain why she should not be summarily evicted as the subject lands are assigned lands belonging to the Government; that upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted her explanation stating that her mother-in-law's vendors were in possession of the subject land since 1955-58, that Laoni permission was granted to them under Rule 9(g) of the Laoni Rules, 1950, and as such, the provisions of the POT Act are not applicable, and requested to drop of the proceedings; that without considering the explanation and the documents produced by the 4 LNA, J WP.No.8105 of 2018 petitioner, respondent No.5 passed orders vide proceedings No.B/560/2011, dated 08.05.2012; that aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 4(1) of the POT Act before Respondent No.4; that respondent No.4, by order dated 28.11.2014 in File No.D/3157/2012, confirmed the order of Respondent No.5; and that aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a Revision before Respondent No.3, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 22.04.2017. Hence, challenging the order of respondent No.3, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. The submissions advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is two-fold, firstly, that the subject lands granted to the original assignees under Rule 9(g) of the Laoni Rules does not fall within the meaning of 'assigned lands' and secondly, that the resumption proceedings were initiated by the respondents after four decades from the date of alienation, which is per se unsustainable. 4.1. In furtherance of the said arguments, learned senior counsel submitted that Section 2(1) of the Act, 1977, defines "assigned land" as land assigned/allotted/ transferred by the Government to landless poor persons under the relevant laws/Rules in force, subject to the condition 5 LNA, J WP.No.8105 of 2018 of non-alienation; that in the instant case, the subject lands were assigned under patta, granted under Rule 9(g) of the Laoni Rules, which do not contain any condition of non-alienability and Form-G merely prohibits alienation without prior permission, rendering such transfer voidable and not void, therefore, the subject lands do not fall within the meaning of 'assigned lands' and as such, the POT Act is not applicable and the respondents failed to appreciate the said fact. 4.2. He further submitted that the vendors of the petitioner's mother- in-law were in occupation of the subject lands since 1955-58 and that, basing on their long standing possession, they were allotted the subject land by patta granted under Rule 9(g) of the Laoni Rules in the year 1961 and had continued to be in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the subject lands till they executed registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner's mother-in-law in the year 1965; and subsequently, the petitioner through a Will deed succeeded to the subject lands. The respondents have initiated resumption proceedings after four decades from the date of alienation and therefore, the same are per se unsustainable and impermissible.
6
LNA, J WP.No.8105 of 2018
5. Learned senior counsel finally submitted that respondent Nos.3 to 5 erroneously applied the POT Act to the subject lands granted under the Laoni Rules and passed resumption orders without proper appreciation of facts and law. By contending thus, learned senior counsel prayed to allow the writ petition.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment submitted that Laoni Rules, which were issued in furtherance of Chapter-5 of the Telangana Area Land Revenue Act, 1317F, were superseded by the Revised Assignment Policy issued in G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.07.1958, as per which, the assigned lands shall be heritable but not alienable and only landless poor persons who directly engage themselves in cultivation are eligible for allotment/assignment by the Government.
6.1. He further submitted that respondent No.3, on perusal of the records, found that the subject lands were assigned after the Revised Assignment Policy came into force in the year 1958, vide G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue, dated 25.07.1958, which prohibits alienation of the assigned land, but, the original allottees have violated the said condition and hence, respondent No.3 passed the impugned 7 LNA, J WP.No.8105 of 2018 order rightly confirming the order passed by respondent No.5, whereunder the subject lands were directed to be resumed to Government as per the provisions of the POT Act.
6.2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that once the conditions of assignment are found to be violated, the respondents are empowered to initiate resumption proceedings and delay in initiating such proceedings cannot be a ground to question the same. He further submitted that the petitioner failed to point out any illegality committed by respondent No.3 in passing the impugned order, thereby, warranting interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
7. As regards the contention of learned senior counsel that there is no clause regarding non-alienability of the subject land in the laoni patta granted to the original allottees and as such, the subject lands does not fall within the meaning of 'assigned lands', thereby prohibiting alienation is concerned, a perusal of the Laoni patta discloses that it is specifically stated therein as under:-
8
LNA, J WP.No.8105 of 2018 "without receiving the orders from the concerned officers, the person who has the right of possession cannot alienate the right of possession."
8. Thus, from the above, it is clear that with the prior approval of the officers concerned, the allottee can alienate the land in his possession and there is no specific clause as such prohibiting alienation. Therefore, the laoni patta is distinct from the assignment, which contains a condition that the assigned land can only be inherited, but not alienated. Thus, unlike assignment, the laoni patta does not altogether prohibits alienation of the land, but, only specifies a rider that the land allotted is alienable, subject to prior orders from the officers concerned.
9. The issue whether the provisions of the POT Act can be applied to the assignments which are made under Rule 9(g) of the Laoni Rules subject to conditional alienations fell for consideration before a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WA.Nos.1894 of 2022 and 720 of 2003 (The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others Vs. P.Harinath Reddy and others), wherein it is held that assignments made under Laoni Rules permitting alienations subject to prior permission of Tahsildar does not fall within 9 LNA, J WP.No.8105 of 2018 the meaning of assignments made under POT Act and that POT Act has no application to the said assignments.
10. The ratio in the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case and the said issue is answered in favour of the petitioner.
11. The second limb of the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the resumption proceedings were not sustainable as the same were initiated after a lapse of nearly four decades from the date of alienation, which is quite unreasonable period of time, and in support of his contention, learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ponnala Narsing Rao vs. Nallolla Pentaiah1 and also the judgment rendered in Mandhamaneri Chinna Swamy died per LRs Vs. Joint Collector Chittoor and Ors 2.
12. Perusal of the record reveals that respondent No.5 has initiated the resumption proceedings, vide order dated 08.05.2012 after a lapse of four decades from the date of the alienation. The said order was confirmed in appeal by respondent No.4, which was later, confirmed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 22.04.2017 in the Revision Petition. 1 (1998) (9) SCC 183 2 2009(1) ALT 424 10 LNA, J WP.No.8105 of 2018
13. For better appreciation, it is necessary to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ponnala Narsing Rao's case (cited supra), wherein while dealing with the provisions of the AP. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Act, it was held that applications have to be moved within a reasonable time.
14. In B.Adinarayana Murthy Vs. Collector, Anantapur 3, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while dealing with the issue of resumption of land, has held that authorities cannot exercise power of resumption after lapse of 34 years and the power cannot be extended beyond a reasonable period, in any event not later than five to six years.
15. In the case on hand, it is the claim of the petitioner that the original allottees were granted patta under Rule 9(g) of Laoni Rules, 1950, vide No.A9/870/1960, A9/13555/60 dated 18.12.1961 and they were in possession and enjoyment of subject land till the date of execution of registered sale deeds in favour of petitioner's mother-in- law. Ever since the date of purchase, the petitioner's mother-in-law was in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and her name was entered in the revenue records, and Rythu Passbooks were issued in her favour in the year 1982. That during her lifetime, she executed a Will 3 2000(1) ALD 168 11 LNA, J WP.No.8105 of 2018 deed in favour of petitioner and after the death of her mother-in-law, the petitioner succeeded to the same.
16. At the outset, it is to be noted that respondent No.5 issued a notice in Form No.II and initiated resumption proceedings, vide order, dated 08.05.2012, which is evidently after a lapse of more than four decades from the date of alienation. No explanation/reasons are forthcoming from the respondents-authorities as to the inordinate delay in initiating resumption proceedings. Merely because the authorities are empowered to initiate resumption proceedings, they cannot exercise such power, at their leisure, that too after a lapse of four decades, which, in any event, cannot be said to be reasonable period for initiating resumption proceedings.
17. The judgment rendered in B.Adinarayana Murthy's case (cited supra) squarely applies to the present case, wherein it is held that authorities cannot exercise power of resumption after lapse of 34 years and the power cannot be extended beyond a reasonable period, in any event, not later than five to six years.
12
LNA, J WP.No.8105 of 2018
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Vs. D.Narsinga Rao 4 while dealing with the issue regarding exercise of revisional powers vested in the competent authority after 50 years of the alleged fraudulent entries were made, it is categorically held as under:-
"The absence of a stipulated period of limitation makes little or no difference insofar as the exercise of the power is concerned which ought to be permissible only when the power is invoked within a reasonable period."
19. Thus, the legal position is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have laid down that even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of power, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period.
20. Thus, in the instant case, the action of the respondents- authorities in initiating the resumption proceedings after a lapse of nearly four decades from the date of alienation, in any event, cannot be said to be reasonable period, without there being any sufficient or acceptable reason/explanation for such delay. 4 2015(3) SCC 695 13 LNA, J WP.No.8105 of 2018
21. Therefore, the authorities cannot initiate resumption proceedings of the subject lands at their own leisure and whims and fancies after a lapse of long period of four decades, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation/reasons for doing so, notwithstanding the existence/non- existence of the clause of non-alienation.
22. In the light of the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 22.04.2017, passed by respondent No.3 in Revision Case No.E2/771/2015 is quashed.
23. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs ________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:06.04.2026 dr