Telangana High Court
Daram Ramachandra Reddy,Medak Dist, 2 vs Tahsildar,Medak Dist, 2 on 3 December, 2020
Author: Shameem Akther
Bench: Shameem Akther
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION No.27901 of 2012
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, wherein the following prayer is made:
"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the order in Proc No.B/544/2004, dt.7.9.2005 of the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapak, Medak district which was confirmed by the Order dt.25.6.2007 in Appeal No.C/2669/2005 of the 2nd respondent herein and also confirmed by the Order in No.F3/11159/2007-F3/117/Assign/2007 dt.31.3.2012 of the 3rd respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to the provisions of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and the Rules made thereunder, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction not to give effect to the same and pass such other order or orders..."
2. Heard the submissions of Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, learned senior counsel, representing Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Harinder Prasad, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.
3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:
"The petitioners herein are brothers. They, along with another brother by name Daram Madhava Reddy, purchased an extent of Acs.6.30 guntas of land in Sy.No.143/17 (2/3rd share of Acs.10.05 guntas) situated at Rampalli Village, H/o Marpadga Village, Kondapaka Mandal, Medak district (presently Siddipet District) on 03.03.1971 from Sundu Lasmaiah, Vallangalla Yerra Balaiah, Bakki Balaiah, Akaram Mallaiah, Nakka Rajaiah and Balaiah, for valuable consideration of Rs.4,050/- and the remaining land of 1/3rd share was purchased by one Vattipalli Kistaiah. The possession of the said land was delivered to the petitioners on the day of purchase itself and since then, the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment 2 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 of the said land. The petitioner No.1 is in possession of Ac.1.28 guntas, petitioner No.2 is in possession of Ac.1.27 guntas and petitioner No.3 is in possession of Ac.1.28 guntas and another purchaser Madhava Reddy is in possession of Ac.1.27 guntas of land. The revenue authorities issued pattedar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioners. When the vendors of the petitioners tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land, they filed a suit in O.S.No.499 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsiff at Siddipet. The vendors of the petitioners filed written statement in the said suit admitting the sale of the subject land in favour of the petitioners. The said suit was decreed on 13.11.1975 granting perpetual injunction in favour of the petitioners. At the time of purchase, the petitioners were not aware that the subject land is assigned land. The petitioners are landless poor and eking out their livelihood by cultivating the said land. They developed the subject land by investing huge amounts. While the matter stood thus, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapaka, issued a show-cause notice in C.No.2101/91, dated 13.08.1993 to the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from the subject land. The petitioners' submitted explanation to the said show-cause notice and upon considering the same, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapaka, dropped further action. Again a show- cause notice, dated 02.04.2005, was issued to the petitioners by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapaka, for their eviction from the subject land. The petitioners submitted explanation to the said show- cause notice stating that they have purchased the subject land in the year 1971 and since then, they are in possession of the same and they were also issued Pattadar pass books and title deeds by the 3 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 revenue authorities. Without considering the said explanation, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapaka, initiated eviction proceedings, after 35 years of purchase of subject lands by the petitioners. Even otherwise, the land was assigned to the vendors of the petitioners in the year 1954-55 under Lavoni Rules, in which, there is no condition of non-alienation of the subject land. The show- cause notice, dated 02.04.2005, does not specify the nature of occupancy rights granted, i.e., whether occupancy rights are granted on collection of market rate or free of market value in favour of landless poor persons; whether the subject land falls within the notified area restricting inalienability as per the notification issued under Section 58A of the Telangana Area Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli; whether the said Act applies to the nature of occupancy rights; whether any change in the revenue records are reflected etc., and as such, the said show cause-notice is void. There was no notification under Section 58A of the Telangana Area Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, notifying that the subject land cannot be alienated. The then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapaka, without considering the above said aspects, by his order in Proceedings No.B/544/2004, dated 07.09.2005, resumed the land into Government custody holding that the subject land is suitable for public purpose to establish Government offices/Institutions and it is most advisable to dispose it in open auction treating as valuable land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an appeal in Appeal No.C/2669/2005, before the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District. The said appeal was dismissed by the 2nd respondent by order, dated 25.06.2007, holding that the petitioners failed to prove their case that the transaction that took place between them and their vendors
4 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 was in good faith and for valuable consideration and as such, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief claimed by them. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred a Revision before the 3rd respondent/Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy. The 3rd respondent, vide order, dated 31.03.2012, passed in No.F3/11159/2007-F3/117/ Assign/2007, dismissed the revision holding that Section 3(5) of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short, 'Act 9 of 1977'), would only apply to an assigned land which was purchased by the landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration and that the prerequisites mentioned in the said Act are not fulfilled in the instant case and as such, the subject transaction under which the petitioners purchased the subject land cannot be considered in that angle and that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the 2nd respondent. The respondents ought to have seen that the assignment of the subject land was made in favour of the vendors of the petitioners in the year 1954-55 under Lavoni Rules and there was no condition of non- alienation under the assignment orders given in favour of vendors of the petitioners. The petitioners purchased the subject land for valuable consideration before the Act 9 of 1977 came into force and they are bona fide purchasers. As the show-cause notice, dated 02.04.2005, did not contain the particulars as to when the assignment was made in favour of the vendors of the petitioners and whether there was any condition of non-alienation of the subject land, the said show-cause notice and the impugned orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are void and illegal. At the time of purchase, there was no notification issued under Section 58A of Telangana Area Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, prohibiting alienation 5 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 of the subject land in favour of the petitioners and as such, the said Act has no application. Moreover, eviction proceedings cannot be initiated after 35 years of purchase of the subject land by the petitioners. The orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and are liable to be set aside."
4. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit filed on 09.07.2013, counter affidavit filed along with the Vacate Stay Petition on 06.02.2020 and additional counter affidavit filed on 05.10.2020 by the 1st respondent/Tahsildar, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District (on behalf of all the respondents) is as follows:
"The subject land was purchased by the petitioners in violation of relevant Act and Rules and in violation of conditions of assignment patta. The petitioners themselves admitted that they purchased the subject land without knowledge that those lands are assigned lands. Since there is violation of conditions of assignment patta and since the petitioners purchased the assigned land which is not alienable, proceedings under Act 9 of 1977 were initiated by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapaka, and the land was resumed by the Government vide order, dated 07.09.2005 passed in Proceedings No.B/544/2004. The petitioners were unsuccessful in Appeal before the 2nd respondent and also in the Revision before the 3rd respondent. Though the names of the purchasers (petitioners) have been recorded in the revenue records in the year 1975-76, the vendors of the petitioners have no right in any manner to alienate the subject land since the land is assigned land. The contention that the petitioners purchased the subject land before the Act 9 of 1977 came 6 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 into force is untenable, as the said Act is retrospective in nature. In fact, the land admeasuring Acs.166.14 guntas in Sy.No.143 situated at Marpadga Village of Kondapak Mandal is "Gairan" Government land. The subject land of Acs.10.05 guntas in Sy.No.143/17 was not assigned to the petitioners, but the petitioners, in collusion with the then revenue officers, got their names entered directly into the village pahani for the year 1985-86 without any sanction of Lavoni patta by Assignment Review Committee and approval by the competent authority. At the time of the fraudulent entries into the pahani of the year 1985-86, the petitioners father by name Daram Chinna Narayana Reddy owned and possessed Acs.21.28 guntas of land, which fact clearly shows that the petitioners are not landless poor persons. The subject land in an extent of Acs.10.05 guntas in Sy.No.143/17 was taken into Government custody by the then Mandal Revenue Inspector, Kodapaka, duly conducting Panchanama on 12.09.2005. The subject land is still in the custody of the Government. Further, this Court was pleased to grant interim suspension of the impugned order on 07.09.2012. Subsequently, in the year 2013, the petitioners filed a Contempt Case in C.C.No.1273 of 2013 which was closed, as the then Tahsildar denied the allegations made by the petitioners, as the possession of the lands was taken over by the Government, as early as on 12.09.2005, under a cover of panchanama. The entire extent of Acs.166.14 guntas of land in Sy.No.143, except the land belonging to the petitioner No.1, was resumed by the Government and ex-gratia was paid to all eligible assignees of Government land and the irregularly occupied land is also resumed to Government by following the procedure. In fact, the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 were paid ex-gratia of Rs.3,35,000/- and 7 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 Rs.3,40,000/- vide Cheque No.028414, dated 18.12.2017, and Cheque No.028415, dated 18.12.2017, respectively, issued by the District Collector, under proper acknowledgement/proof of receipt, for the illegally occupied Government land, in order to settle the issue pending for a long time and to put a quietus to the long pending issue, in view of urgency for the construction of New Integrated Collectorate Complex, New Police Commissionerate Building in the newly created Siddipet District Headquarters and also for allocating the land to all other Government Offices & staff quarters etc. The Government is ready to pay ex-gratia to the petitioner No.1 also on par with petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The petitioners filed this writ petition with a mala fide intention to grab the valuable Government land. The Government land situated in Sy.No.143 of Marpadga Village is allocated to the offices of the District Collectorate and District Police Commissionerate and other Government offices in the newly created Siddipet District and the subject land is abutting Rajiv Rahadari and very much required for the Government/Public Purpose. The petitioners, having no semblance of right, cannot interfere with the developmental activities undertaken by the Government for the public good. The petitioners are not the assignees and were not granted any Lavoni Pattas and also ineligible for grant of assignment at the time when their names were wrongly entered in the pahani of the year 1985-86, as their father has undivided patta landed property to an extent of Acs.21.28 guntas. The subject land vests with the Government and the contention of the petitioners that they are in possession of the subject land is incorrect. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed."
8 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012
5. The sum and substance of the reply affidavit and additional reply affidavit filed by the petitioners is as follows:
"The petitioners have purchased the subject land in good faith. The petitioners never claimed that the subject land is assigned to them. The 1st respondent in his additional counter stated that without approval of the Assignment Review Committee, the names of the petitioners were entered in the Pahani for the year 1985-86, which clearly shows that the 1st respondent, without verifying the records, filed the additional counter affidavit. In fact, in the counter affidavit filed along with vacate stay petition on
06.02.2020, it was stated that the land situated in Sy.No.143/17 is assigned land and the petitioners purchased the said land in violation of conditions of patta. Contrary to the said stand, it was stated in the additional counter affidavit that the subject land is 'Gairan' Government land and the land was assigned to the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners never claimed that the subject land was assigned to them by the Government. These contradictory statements of the respondents clearly show that by hook or crook, they wanted to evict the petitioners from the subject land who are in possession of the same since the year 1971. The vendors of the petitioners can alienate the subject land, as there was no condition of non-alienation of the subject land which was acquired by them prior to the year 1954. Further, the Court granted interim order on 07.09.2012 in favour of the petitioners by suspending the operation of the impugned order. Once the Court suspends the operation of the impugned order, subsequent proceedings of the respondents automatically become defunct. The contradictory statements of the respondents on oath are nothing 9 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 but misleading the Court. The respondents are deliberately not filing the assignment proceedings before the Court, as the burden lies on them when they are taking the specific stand that the petitioners have purchased the land contrary to the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. The Government never taken possession of the subject land and no panchanama was conducted on 12.09.2005, as contended by the respondents. By virtue of interim suspension order passed by this Court, the petitioners are enjoying their possession over the subject land and the Government never resumed the subject land. The petitioners are not aware about the resumption of the subject land to an extent of Acs.166.14 guntas in Sy.No.143 and paying ex-gratia to the eligible assignees of Government land. The contention that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 gave consent to the District Collector for resuming the subject land for which compensation was also paid to both of them, without fixing the boundaries, is not possible. No notice was given to the petitioners prior to the alleged consent given by petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner No.1 was informed by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 that the signatures of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were taken on white papers with coercion at the point of gun and they have not signed any legal documents. The petitioners cannot be harassed by issuing successive notices. The orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are illegal and arbitrary. Government has already acquired sufficient land for construction of Government offices. The subject land is not adjacent to Collectorate Complex and not required for public purpose. The only intention of the Government in acquiring the subject land is to handover the said land to real estate people and to grab the land with commercial motive. In 10 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 fact, the respondents have already acquired huge extent of land i.e., about 166 acres in Sy.No.143 and other survey numbers for the said purpose in Duddeda Village and part of the lands in Rampally Village. The land acquired in Duddeda village itself is more than sufficient for construction of Government offices and the construction was already completed in an extent of about 46 acres and the Government is still having the vacant land of more than 100 acres in their possession. Apart from that, the Government re- allocated Acs.2.00 guntas of land to one Juvvanna Shanker, an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas to Aluka Raji Reddy in Sy.No.143/17, which are adjacent to the lands of the petitioners. The Government, having acquired the land from private individuals for public purpose, instead of using the same for which they were acquired, re-allocated the same to private individuals who are real estate agents. If really the government requires the land for public purpose, they will not re-allocate the land to private individuals. The distance between the Collectorate Complex and the subject land is about 1.2 Kms and in between, there are other lands of about 12 individuals, which were not acquired. Now the Government intends to acquire the land of the petitioners by by-passing the lands of 12 individuals which shows the mala fide intention of the Government to grab the land of petitioners."
6. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made submissions in-line with the averments of the writ petition and the reply affidavits. It is further vehemently contended that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapaka, having issued pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioners in 11 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 respect of the subject land recognizing their right over the subject land, erroneously passed the resumption order, dated 07.09.2005, which was upheld in Appeal and Revision before 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively. The lands assigned prior to the year 1958 under Lavoni Rules do not contain the clause of non- alienation. The pahani of the year 1954 clearly shows that the vendors of the petitioners were assigned the subject land prior to 1954. The respondents have neither pleaded nor filed any document to show that the vendors of the petitioners were assigned the subject lands after the year 1958. Therefore, the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 do not apply to the instant case. The then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapaka, has initiated the eviction proceedings after 35 years of purchase of the lands by the petitioners and hence, the said proceedings are vitiated on the ground of laches. While granting interim suspension of the impugned order on 07.09.2012, this Court observed that "it is rather unfortunate that the authorities of the revenue department, who are supposed to maintain proper records and help the people, are solely concentrating their entire attention on grabbing of the land on one pretext or the other" and thus granted the interim suspension as prayed for. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit on 05.07.2013 stating that the subject land was assigned land and the petitioners have purchased the said land and also admitted that the names of the petitioners have been recorded in the revenue records in the year 1975-76. The respondents did not deny the fact that the vendors of the petitioners were in possession of the subject land from 1954-55. Even after passing of interim order by this Court, when the respondents tried to interfere with the 12 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 possession of the petitioners, they filed Contempt Case in C.C.No.1273 of 2013 before this Court. The said Contempt Case was closed on 16.08.2013 when the respondents filed counter stating that they are not interfering with the possession of the petitioners. Curiously, after lapse of 8 years of passing the interim order in this writ petition, the respondents have filed vacate stay petition on 06.02.2020 and filed another counter along with the said vacate stay petition. In the said counter also, they have admitted that the subject land is assigned land. The respondents have not filed the assignment proceedings before the Court for the reasons best known to them. Curiously, the respondents filed additional counter affidavit on 05.10.2020 taking a different stand from their earlier stand that the possession of the subject land was taken over on 07.09.2005. In the additional counter affidavit, the respondents have raised a new plea that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were paid ex-gratia of Rs.3,35,000/- and Rs.3,40,000/- respectively on 18.12.2017 for which, the petitioners filed reply affidavit stating that at the point of gun, the respondents obtained signatures of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 on white paper and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have not signed any legal documents. In the absence of any statement by the respondents as to whether they have recognized the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as assignees or pattadars and without fixing the boundaries and without issuing any notice to the petitioners, the alleged payment of ex-gratia to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is suspicious. The respondents have already acquired sufficient land for the purpose of constructing Government offices and other offices and the subject land belonging to the petitioners is not required for public purpose. Further, the distance 13 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 between the Collectorate Complex and the land of the petitioners is about 1.2 Kms and in between, there are other lands of 12 individuals, which are not acquired by the Government for the reasons best known to them. The intention of the Government to acquire the land of the petitioners by by-passing the lands of the 12 individuals is arbitrary, which shows the mala fide intention of the respondents to grab the land of the petitioners and ultimately prayed to grant the relief claimed in this writ petition. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel had relied on the following decisions.
1. Letter sent from Plot No.338, Parvant Nagar, Hyderabad Vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District1.
2. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others Vs. P.Harinath Reddy and others2
3. V.Subbayamma Vs. Joint Collector, Additional District Magistrate, Guntur and others3.
7. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents made submissions in-line with the averments in counter and additional counter affidavits. It is further vehemently contended that the counter affidavit filed on 05.10.2020 along with relevant enclosures clearly establish that as on 1952-53, the land in Sy.No.143 is recorded as 'Sarkari'. Further, the petitioners are neither the assignees nor were granted any Lavoni Patta and also ineligible for grant of assignment at the time when their names were wrongly entered in the revenue records (in the year 1985-86), as their father by name Daram Chinna Narayana Reddy owned and possessed Acs.21.28 guntas of undivided landed property. In fact, the petitioners Nos.2 & 3 were paid ex-gratia of Rs.3,35,000/- and Rs.3,40,000/- vide Cheque 1 2008 (5) ALD 626 (DB) 2 2009 (4) ALT 1 (DB) 14 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 No.028414, dated 18.12.2017 and Cheque No.028415, dated 18.12.2017, respectively, issued by the District Collector, under proper acknowledgement/proof of receipt, for the illegally occupied Government land in order to settle the long pending issue and to put a quietus to the same. The subject land is required for public purpose, i.e., for construction of New Integrated Collectorate Complex, New Police Commissionerate Building in the newly created Siddipet District Headquarters and also for allocating the land to all other Government Offices & staff quarters etc. Application of provisions of Act 9 of 1977 is retrospective in nature. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are untenable. There is no illegality in the resumption order, dated 07.09.2005, passed in Proceedings No.B/544/2004, by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapaka, which was rightly confirmed by the 2nd respondent in appeal and the 3rd respondent in revision. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. There are no merits in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, the learned Special Government Pleader placed reliance on the following decisions.
1. Vemulapalli Chinna Kondaiah and others Vs. District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru4
2. Dharma Reddy Vs. Sub-Collector, Bodhan and others5
3. Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana and another6.
8. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for determination in this writ petition is as follows: 3
2013 (6) ALD 46 4 AIR 1981 AP 62 5 AIR 1987 AP 160 (FB) 6 2012 (1) Supreme Court Cases 656 15 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 "Whether the order in Proceedings No.B/544/2004, dated 07.09.2005, of the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapak, Medak district, which was confirmed by the order, dated 25.06.2007, passed in Appeal No.C/2669/2005 by the 2nd respondent and also confirmed by the order, dated 31.03.2012, passed in Revision No.F3/11159/2007-F3/117/Assign/2007, by the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside?"
POINT:-
9. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioners, along with their another brother by name Daram Madhava Reddy, purchased an extent of Acs.6.30 guntas of land in Sy.No.143/17 (2/3rd share of Acs.10.05 guntas) situated at Rampalli Village, H/o Marpadga Village, Kondapaka Mandal, Medak district (presently Siddipet District) on 03.03.1971 from Sundu Lasmaiah, Vallangalla Yerra Balaiah, Bakki Balaiah, Akaram Mallaiah, Nakka Rajaiah and Balaiah, for valuable consideration of Rs.4,050/- under a simple sale deed, dated 03.03.1971. It is borne by record that as on the date of purchase, the father of the petitioners by name Daram Chinna Narayana Reddy was owning and possessing an extent of Acs.21.28 guntas of undivided patta landed property. This aspect has not been denied by the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are landless poor persons. Further, admittedly, there is neither registered sale deed in between the petitioners and their vendors, nor the said sale was validated by the authorities concerned. Further, the entire land in Sy.No.143 is Acs.166.14 guntas and it is Government land. There is no document from the side of the petitioners to conclude that at any point of time, the subject land was assigned in favour of the petitioners by the Assignment Review 16 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 Committee and approval by the competent authority, prior to the mutation made in their favour. Hence, the mutation of subject land in favour of petitioners has no legal sanctity. As per the copy of panchanama dated 12.09.2005 placed before this Court, on 12.09.2005, the possession of the subject land was resumed by the Government by the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned. It is also borne by record that that the petitioners Nos.2 & 3 were paid ex- gratia of Rs.3,35,000/- and Rs.3,40,000/- vide Cheque No.028414, dated 18.12.2017, and Cheque No.028415, dated 18.12.2017, respectively, issued by the District Collector, in order to settle the issue pending for a long time and to put a quietus to the same. There is no denial from the side of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 with regard to the receipt of the amounts. Further, the said amounts were not returned to the Government till date by petitioner Nos.2 and 3. In written submissions, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have stated that the respondents obtained their signatures on white papers with coercion at the point of gun and they have not signed any legal documents. The said amounts were paid to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in December, 2017. If at all the contentions of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are true, nothing prevented them from lodging a report with the police concerned or returning the amounts received by them to the authority concerned. Moreover, there is no reason for the respondents to indulge in such an act. These submissions clearly demonstrate that false defence has been set up by the petitioners by fabricating a story to make unlawful gain. It can be safely concluded that the amounts paid vide cheques dated 18.12.2017 are paid towards ex-gratia amount, as contended by the official respondents. Having received the ex-gratia amount 17 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 from the respondents, it is not open to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to claim resumption of the subject land in their favour. Moreover, the petitioners are not the original assignees of the subject land. As far as the claim of the petitioner No.1 is concerned, the respondents have come up with a proposal to pay ex-gratia to him also on par with respondent Nos.2 and 3. As the things stand as on today, the petitioners are neither original assignees of the subject land nor they obtained the subject land under registered sale deed or the said sale has been validated by the authorities concerned. Furthermore, there is no approval of the authorities concerned to assign Ac.1.28 guntas of land to petitioner No.1 in Sy.No.143. Moreover, though ex-gratia amount was not paid to petitioner No.1, since Act 9 of 1977 is retrospective in nature and moreover the petitioner No.1 was/is not a landless poor person, the impugned proceeding issued against him cannot be brushed aside.
10. The contention of the petitioners is that the pahani of the year 1954 clearly shows that the vendors of the petitioners were assigned the subject land prior to 1954 and that the respondents have neither pleaded nor filed any document to show that the vendors of the petitioners were assigned the subject land after the year 1958 and therefore, the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 do not apply to the instant case. In Vemulapalli Chinna Kondaiah's case (4 supra), a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
The Act applies to the transfers made prior to the commencement of the Act as well. If the Act did not apply to transfers made earlier to the commencement of the Act, Sub-section (5) has no meaning. It would be wholly otiose. Similarly, there would have been no purpose in Sub-section (1) saying, inter alia, that the land "shall be deemed never to have been transferred". The objects and reasons accompanying the Bill, clearly go to show that the Act was intended to apply to alienations made prior to the commencement of the Act 18 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 as well. Be that as it may, the language of Section 3 is clear and does not admit of any doubt.
11. Further, in Dharma Reddy's case (5 supra), a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, speaking through the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, held as follows:
The presence of the expression "and shall be deemed never to have been transferred" in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act is the unmistakable indication that the Legislature intended the invalidation of the transfer of assigned land retrospectively also. Section 3(1) of the Act not only prohibits transfer of the assigned lands on or after the commencement of the Act, but also declares retrospectively that all transfers of such assigned land which took place prior to the coming into force of the Act shall also be null and void, non est in the eye of law, and no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer.
12. Thus, it is clear that application of Act 9 of 1977 is retrospective in nature and that all transfers of assigned lands which took place prior to the coming into force of the Act shall be null and void, non est in the eye of law, and no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. It is true that Section 3(5) of Act 9 of 1977 stipulates that the said Act would not apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration. But in the instant case, it is borne by record that the petitioners father by name Daram Chinna Narayana Reddy owned and possessed Acs.21.28 guntas of land, which fact clearly demonstrates that the petitioners are not landless poor persons. In view of the same, it is held that Act 9 of 1977 clearly applies to the instant case and that the contention of the petitioners that the said Act does not apply to the instant case cannot be accepted.
13. Further, admittedly, the petitioners obtained the subject land from their vendors under a simple sale deed, dated 03.03.1971. In 19 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited's case (6 supra), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"A transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance duly stamped and registered as required by law, no right title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred. The Courts will not treat transactions of the nature of "GPA sales"
or `SA/GPA/will transfers' as complete or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property, but also to transfer of leasehold property."
14. In the instant case, the petitioners admittedly obtained the subject land by way of simple sale deed, dated 03.03.1971, but not by way of registered sale deed. It demonstrates that there is no valid flow of title in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioners from their vendors. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek resumption of land in their favour by quashing the proceedings issued by respondents. Under these circumstances, the prayer of the petitioners on this aspect is liable to be rejected.
15. The other contentions of the petitioners that the respondents have already acquired sufficient land for the purpose of constructing Government offices and they do not require the subject land and that the distance between the Collectorate Complex and the subject land is about 1.2 Kms and in between, there are other lands of about 12 individuals, which were not acquired and the respondents intend to acquire the land of the petitioners by by-passing the lands of 12 individuals and that the Government re-allocated some land in favour of the persons from whom it was acquired, cannot be grounds to grant the relief claimed by the petitioners and would not, in any way, vitiate the impugned resumption proceedings 20 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer and confirmed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in appeal and revision respectively.
16. I have gone through the decisions in Letter sent from Plot No.338, Parvant Nagar, Hyderabad's case (1 supra) and V.Subbayamma's case (3 supra) relied by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the said decisions. But both the decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand for the simple reason that in both the decisions, the petitioners therein obtained the property from their vendors under registered sale deeds. In the instant case, there is no valid flow of title in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioners from their vendors, since the subject land was obtained by the petitioners under a simple sale deed, dated 03.03.1971. In P.Harinath Reddy's case (2 supra), it was held that power of resumption, even if available, exercise of such power is not permissible after long length of time and that the Act 9 of 1977 is not applicable to the said case since the assignment was made in the year 1961 and there is no condition of non-alienation in the order of assignment. But in the said decision also, in one writ petition the original allottee sold the land to the vendee/s under registered sale deed/s and in the other writ petition the original assignee sought permission of the Tahsildar under Sections 47 and 48 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and was granted permission by Tahsildar on 30.10.1967 whereupon she sold the said property under registered sale deed dated 18.12.1967 and thereafter, the said purchaser obtained layout and divided the land 21 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 into different plots and sold the said plots to each of the respondents under various registered sale deeds on various dates from 1979 - 1982. In the instant case, as per the material placed on record, as on the date of purchase and thereafter also, the petitioners were not landless poor persons and the transaction made in between the petitioners and their vendors is only by way of simple sale deed, dated 03.03.1971. Further, the said sale was not validated by the authorities concerned. There was no permission in favour of the vendors of the petitioners to sell the subject land in favour of the petitioners. Furthermore, there are no registered sale deeds in between the transferors and the transferees. Moreover, the resumption proceedings are not issued against the original assignees. Therefore, the decisions relied by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable from the instant case, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Further, it is settled principle of law that each case shall be decided on its own merits.
17. The 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, in the order, dated 25.06.2007, passed in the appeal, after analyzing the whole issue and the evidence adduced by both the parties and after framing necessary issues, held that no faithful transaction took place between the two parties and the transaction took place for less consideration; the panahies furnished by the petitioners show that there is no cultivation of the subject land; if the petitioners are landless poor persons and are dependant only on agriculture, they should use the subject land for agricultural purpose, but the petitioners started construction of temple on the subject land; all 22 Dr.SA, J WP No.27901/2012 these circumstances show that the land was rightly resumed by the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned. The said findings were upheld by the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector in the order, dated 31.03.2012 passed in the Revision. In the circumstances of the case, the respondents are justified in passing the impugned orders and there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the same. There are no grounds to grant the relief claimed by the petitioners in this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
18. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petition, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 03rd December, 2020 Bvv