Telangana High Court
Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad 3 ... vs Gpa Holder, Dr. Pasupaleti Nirmala ... on 5 July, 2022
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.A.No. 1328 of 2014
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned Government Pleader for assignment, and Mr. T.Nagender, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Respondent as the petitioner had preferred the related writ petition being W.P.No.28980 of 2013 assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 19.01.2012, passed by the Tahsildar of Mulugu Mandal.
3. By the aforesaid order, Tahsildar had directed resumption of the land granted to the respondent on the ground that he had violated the condition of grant. When respondent preferred appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the appeal was dismissed and the order of resumption was affirmed vide order dated 31.08.2013.
::2::
4. These two orders dated 19.01.2012 and 31.08.2018 came to be challenged by the respondent in the related writ petition.
5. Appellants, who were the respondents in the writ petition, had filed counter-affidavit.
6. Learned Single Judge, after hearing both the sides, allowed the writ petition in the following manner:
"It is evident from the undisputed facts, particularly, the fact that the petitioner purchased the aforesaid land on payment of market value from the Government, as per order of the Collector dated 08.02.2001, referred to above, itself would establish that on such purchase the petitioner became the owner of the said land and the said land ceases to be a Government land or an assignable land and consequently, no action could have been initiated by the Tahsildar under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act').
7. Having sold the land on payment of market value, the Government could not have placed any condition restricting the enjoyment of the land by the said owner, as any such condition or restriction in such a sale would clearly be void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act. For the sake of convenience, the aforesaid provision is extracted hereunder:
::3::
"10. Conditions restraining alienation: - Where property is transferred subject to a condition or limitation absolutely restraining the transferee or any person claiming under his from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property, the condition or limitation is void, except in the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor or those claiming under him:
Provided that property may be transferred to or for the benefit of a woman (not being a Hindu, Mohammaden or Buddhist), so that she shall not have power during her marriage to transfer or charge the same or her beneficial interest therein."
8. It is well settled, therefore, that conditions of such nature, which restrict the enjoyment of the land, as an owner, amount to clog on ownership and is void in law. I am, therefore, unable to appreciate as to how the second respondent could take up proceedings for resumption of the same land, which was sold to the petitioner on payment of market value in the purported exercise under the Act. Neither the second respondent nor the third respondent have appreciated the said aspect. It is evident from the extracted portion of the report of the Tahsildar, as above, that the petitioner being the rightful owner of the land was within the contemplation of the Tahsildar himself. However, still he proceeded to initiate the impugned action for resumption of land as if the land continues to be Government assigned land and that the petitioner has violated the conditions of assignment.
::4::
9. Though the counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the official respondents justifying their action, the aforesaid aspect remains uncontraverted and unanswered. In my view, therefore, both the orders, which are questioned in this writ petition, are clearly without jurisdiction for the reasons stated above and are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Respondents 2 and 3 shall restore the land to the petitioner forthwith.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs."
7. Thus, learned Single Judge noted that respondent had purchased the subject land on payment of market value from the Government. On such purchase, respondent became the owner of the subject land whereafter, the same ceased to be a Government land or an assignable land. Having sold the land on payment of market value, the Government could not have placed any condition restricting the enjoyment of the land by the land owner.
8. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. No case for interference is made out.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
::5::
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _____________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 05.07.2022 LUR