Korani Ravinder vs State Of Telangana on 2 May, 2025

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Korani Ravinder vs State Of Telangana on 2 May, 2025

Bench: K. Lakshman

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

              WRIT PETITION No.21467 OF 2023
ORDER:

Heard Mr. Prabhakar Peri, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General appearing for respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent No. 3 in proposing to conduct e-auction on 10.08.2023 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 of Budvel Village Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as part of Plot Nos. 14 and 15 ( for short, the subject property'), without issuance of notice, as illegal; to declare inaction of the respondent Nos.2, 4 to 6 in considering the representations filed by the petitioners for rectification of revenue records as illegal; consequently direct the respondent No.3 not to conduct any auction/e-auction in respect of the land of father of the petitioners on 10.08.2023, not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of father of the petitioners over his land, to consider the representations submitted by father of the petitioners for rectification of entries in the revenue records and mutating their names in revenue records.

3. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONERS IN BRIEF:-

i. They belong to Scheduled Caste community. Their father is landless poor.

ii. Government has taken over possession of surplus land to an extent of Ac. 281.61 guntas belongs to Raufuddin Hussain and Zakia Hussain, vide proceedings No.CC/411/75 and CC/412/75 of Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad West Taluk, Ranga Reddy District, in terms of provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1973).

iii. The land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 situated at Budwel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property'), was allotted to the father of the petitioners i.e. Sri Korani Ganesh, in the year 1978 subject to payment of Rs.375/- as per Section 14 (2) of the Act, 1973 in 13 equal annual instalments to the 3 Government within 15 years from the date of the said allotment.

iv. Their father paid the said amount and became absolute owner and possessor of the land. His name was also mutated in the revenue records. Pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in favour of their father. His name was also reflected in the I-B Register and pahanies. However, due to reasons best known to their father, in the pahanies, after 1997-98, subject land is mentioned as 'Kharij khata' but their father's name was not mentioned. v. Father of the petitioners has submitted several representations including representations dated 22.11.2019, 08.02.2020 to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 with a request to include his name in the pahanies. The same were not considered.

vi. The said land was not acquired for any other purpose and resumption proceedings were not passed.

vii. They placed reliance on the information obtained by them under RTI Act. In the year 1997, show cause notices were 4 issued to the allotees of land in Sy.No.282 to 289 alleging violation of the rules and proposing to resume possession of the land. However, his father did not receive any such notice. The allottees who received the notices filed writ petition vide W.P.No.8612 of 2000 questioning the said notices. The said notices were set aside permitting the petitioners therein to submit explanations. 5th respondent passed proceedings No. D/3301/2000, dated 15.11.2002. Challenging the said proceedings, 23 allottees filed writ petition vide W.P.No.24120/2002. Vide order dated 30.04.2008, this Court set aside the said proceedings holding that the 5th respondent - RDO, Rajendra Nagar, did not follow the procedure laid down under law. viii. In the month of March/April, 2023, some of the officials of the Revenue Department came to their house and the subject land asking them to sign certain documents relinquishing their rights on the said land but the petitioners have refused.

ix. 3rd respondent has erected hoarding in the said area proposing to sell 100 acres of land by dividing them into 14 plots proposing to conduct e-auction on 28.082023. x. The petitioners came to know about the subject land forming part of the plot Nos.14 and 15 was proposed to be auctioned. On enquiry, they came to know that 3rd respondent has issued a paper notification in leading daily newspaper on 02.08.2023 proposing to conduct auction of 100 acres consisting of 14 plots by e-auction dated 10.08.2023.

xi. Challenging the said auction, the petitioners filed the present writ petition contending that they are in possession of the subject property. No resumption proceedings were issued, the subject land was not acquired by respondents by following the due procedure laid down under law and thus conducting auction of the said properties on 10.08.2023 is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the procedure laid down under law. 6 xii. They also specifically contend that their father is suffering with paralysis and he is in hospital and therefore he is not in a position to sign the writ affidavit.

4. Whereas, respondent Nos.2, 4 to 6, filed counters contended as follows:-

i. The land in question falls in Sy.Nos.288 to 289 situated in Budwel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Total extent of the said land of 281.61 is in the names of Raufuddin Hussain and Zakia Hussain. ii. The said land is declared as ceiling surplus land. The same was taken over by the Government under the Act, 1973.

iii. The same was assigned to 66 landless poor for agricultural purpose.

iv. The father of the petitioners is also one of the 66 assignees.

v. In the year 1997, a notice was issued to all the 66 assignees including the father of the petitioners, for violation of assignment rules.

vi. As they failed to cultivate the lands, made the said land into plots in contravention of the provisions of the assignment of lands under the Act, 1973, the said land was resumed by following the procedure laid down under law.

vii. After passing the resumption orders, respondents evicted all the 66 assignees in Sy.Nos.282 to 299/P of Budwel Village, and resumed the same as per the orders of the RDO, Chevella Division vide F.No. D/5062/97, dated 17.04.1998.

viii. 165 acres in Sy.No.282 to 290 and 296/P falling in Budwel Village, was taken over possession by the then HUDA on 26.12.2007.

ix. Vide G.O. Ms. No.13, Industries and Commerce (IP and INF) Department, dated 10.06.2021, government has issued instructions on disposal of Government vacant lands under the control of various departments in the State which are not required for any public purposes. 8 x. Since they are in prime locations, prone to unauthorized encroachments, an extent of land admeasuring Ac.100 was made into layouts comprising 17 plots. The same was put to auction.

xi. Therefore, the petitioners cannot file the present writ petition.

xii. The RDO, Chevella has issued Memo No. C/3483/2012 dated 22.11.2012 to the father of the petitioners stating that as per the records, the land in Sy.Nos.282 to 299 covering an extent of Ac.165.00 guntas has been allotted to HUDA and Ac.91.00 guntas was allotted to Tourism department vide Government Memo No.38539 (Assn.VI) Dept/2009, dated 12.10.2009 and on the ground that the land is under possession of HUDA and Tourism Department. Therefore, the issuance of passbooks and title deeds with respect of subject property in favour of the petitioners' father does not arise.

xiii. Aggrieved by the orders of RDO, Chevella, vide D/5062/1997, the Assignees i.e. Gunti Narsimha and 19 9 others, filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.8612 of 2000. This Court disposed of the said writ petition setting aside the said proceedings, with a direction to the petitioners therein to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 19.11.1997 and thereafter, directed the RDO, Chevella to pass orders afresh. Till then, the petitioners therein shall not be evicted.

xiv. In compliance of the said order, the RDO, Chevella passed order dated 15.11.2002 holding that the petitioners therein/Assignees violated the conditions of the assignment. Therefore, the RDO, Chevella, directed the MRO, Rajendra Nagar, to evict the assignees and resume the land and to keep the same under Government custody. xv. Challenging the said resumption proceedings dated 15.11.2002, Gunti Narsimha and 19 others/assignees filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.24120 of 2002. Vide order dated 30.04.2008, this Court set aside the said proceedings on imposition of costs. The petitioners' father is not a party to the same.

xvi. Smt. G.Yadamma, one of the Assignees also filed writ petition No.23719 of 2003 challenging the proceedings dated 17.04.1998 and the same was also allowed. However, this Court granted liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh action by following the procedure laid down under law.

5. The respondents have also filed additional counter contending as follows:-

i. The petitioners' father is not a party to the aforesaid two writ petitions and therefore, resumption orders passed against the father of the petitioners attained finality. ii. The District Collector, i..e 4th respondent herein vide letter dated 02.11.2007 has handed advance possession of land admeasuring Ac.164.35 guntas in Sy.No.282 to 290 and 296/P situated at Budwel Village to HUDA and Ac.91.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.291 to 295, 296/P, 297, 298 and 299/2 to the Tourism Department.

iii. Thereafter, the assignees and encroachers have formed into an Association of land losers, in the name of 11 'Arundati Welfare Association (Regd.No.1889 of 2007),of the subject lands, approached the Tahsildar and HUDA requesting to enter into an agreement for a package i.e. 66 Assignees, who have pattadar passbooks shall be given 800 sq.yards in HMDA developed layout in lieu of the land lost and for the 82 encroachers who do not possess any title, an extent of 200 sq.yards be allotted.

iv. The said Association represented by its President Sri Kurani Balraj, President, gave consent affidavit on 23.10.2010 in the presence of Sri K.Sadanandan @ K.S.Nandan (Ex-President) stating that they have agreed for the above package for that they undertake to relinquish all their rights over the above lands and abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the Government and also withdraw the cases pending in the Courts. The said consent affidavit was handed over to the Members of said Association including the father of the petitioners. 12 v. Vide proceedings dated 31.12.2022, 4th respondent /District Collector demarcated the land and given possession to Assignees of 800 sq.yards each and 200 sq. yards each to the encroachers through open lottery, as compensation subject to relinquishment of their rights over the land and withdrawal of Court cases, if any. vi. In the said open lottery, father of the petitioners was given 800 sq.yards and the petitioner No.1 got 200 sq.yards since his name was in encroachment list. Conveyance deeds were executed in favour of the assignees and encroachers. 1st petitioner and petitioners' father did not obtain conveyance deeds.

vii. The petitioners, having knowledge of the aforesaid proceedings dated 31.12.2022, 26.04.2022, filed the present writ petition. Therefore, it is devoid of merits.

6. The petitioners filed replies to the counter affidavits denying the said allegations.

7. Both Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Advocate General made their submissions extensively.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the State of Orissa vs. Binapani Dei 1.

9. Learned Advocate General places reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Ubain2, Yadaiah vs. State of Telangana 3 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Yesaiah died by legal heirs vs. Mandal Revenue Officer4.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

10. The aforesaid rival contentions and also perusal of the record would reveal that owners of land in Sy.Nos.282 to 289 of Budwel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District i.e. Raufuddin Hussain and Zakia Hussain, filed declaration under the provisions of the Act, 1973. Vide order dated 27.06.1977, the primary Tribunal determined the said surplus land holding to an 1 AIR 1967 SC 1269 2 (1997) 7 SCC 44 3 (2023) 10 SCC 755 4 (2023) SCC OnLine TS 3558 14 extent of 289 acres, and declared that the said surplus land to have vested in the State to be disposed of in terms under Section 14 of the Act. The land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 of Budwel Village was allotted to father of the petitioners herein and 65 persons (allottees), under the provisions of the Act, 1973. According to the petitioners, their father had paid value of the land in installments as per the said allotment order. The said facts were also admitted by respondent Nos.4 to 6 in their counter and additional counter.

11. Perusal of record would also reveal that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of father of the petitioners in respect of Ac.4.19 guntas. His name was also mentioned in I-B Register and Pahanies. Thereafter, the petitioners' father submitted several representations including representation dated 18.06.2024 and 07.12.2020 requesting revenue authorities to continue his name in the revenue records by deleting the same from Karij Khatha. The said writ petitions are pending.

12. It is also not in dispute that the RDO, Chevella Division has issued notices to several assignees alleging that they have assigned land to them and SK Developers are making the same into plots. Thus, they have contravened the provisions of assignment under Section 14 of the Act, 1973. The said notices were issued under Section 14(5) of the Act, 1973. Some of the assignees asserting that notices were served on them and when revenue officials tried to dispossesses them, they filed a writ petition vide W.P.Nos.8612 of 2000 assailing the notice dated 19.11.1997. Vide order dated 29.09.2000, this Court disposed of the said writ petition setting aside the said notice dated 19.11.1997 and permitting the petitioners herein to submit explanations within the stipulated time and directed the respondents therein to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioners in the said writ petition filed joint explanation denying the allegations. They have also submitted written representation on 29.10.2002 through their counsel. The same were not considered. However, vide proceedings No.D/3701/2000 dated 15.11.2000, the RDO, Chevella passed resumption orders. Vide order dated 30.04.2008, this Court set 16 aside the resumption proceedings dated 16.11.2002 of RDO, Chevella imposed costs of Rs.2,500/- and also directed the State or appropriate agency to determine the liability of the officer and recover the same from him.

13. Perusal of record would also reveal that one Smt. K.Yadamma, assignee filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.9646 of 2000 challenging the resumption order dated 17.04.1998 of 5th respondent herein. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 23.04.2001 granting liberty to the petitioner therein to prefer an appeal. Thereafter, she has filed an appeal before the Joint Collector challenging the said resumption orders. Vide order dated 18.10.2003, Joint Collector dismissed the said appeal. Challenging the said proceedings, Smt. Yadamma filed writ petition vide W.P.No.23179 of 2003. Vide order dated 16.08.2013, this Court allowed the said writ petition setting aside the resumption proceedings dated 17.04.1998 confirmed by the Joint Collector vide proceedings dated 18.10.2003. however, this Court granted liberty to the respondents therein to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down 17 under law by issuing notice and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner therein.

14. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners' father is not a party to the writ petition vide W.P.No.8612 of 2000, 24120 of 2002, 23179 of 2003 but it is the specific contention of the petitioners herein that notice was not served on the petitioners' father. The subject land was not resumed from the petitioners' father without following the due procedure laid down under law.

15. According to the respondents 4 to 6, they have also resumed the land by following the due procedure, handed over it to HUDA and Tourism Department.

16. In the light of the said submission, as discussed supra, it is not in dispute that the owners of land in Sy.Nos.282 to 289 of Budvel Village filed declaration in terms of Act, 1973 vide order dated 27.06.1977, primary Tribunal, determined surplus land holding to an extent of 289 acres and declared the surplus land to have vested in the State to be disposed of in terms of Section 14 of the Act, 1973. It is also not in dispute that the land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 of Budwel Village was allotted to 18 the father of the petitioners in terms of Section 14 of the Act, 1973 for the purpose of doing agriculture. If any alienations effected or other acts done in respect of any land in violation of the conditions specified in terms of Sections 14 (4) of the Act, 1973, it shall be null and void and the Tahsildar shall resume the land after giving an opportunity to the persons effected on making representation in the said behalf.

17. It is also relevant to note that Section 14 of the Act, 1973 deals with the disposal of the land vested under the Act, the same is relevant and the same is extracted below:-

14. Disposal of land vested in Government -

(1) The lands vested in the Government under this Act shall be allotted for use as house-sites for agricultural labourers, village artisans or other poor persons owning no houses or house-sites, or transferred to the weaker sections of the people dependent on agriculture for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, in such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that as far as may be practicable, not less than one half of the total extent of land so allotted or transferred shall be allotted or transferred to the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and out of the balance, not less than two-thirds shall be allotted or transferred to the members of the backward classes of citizens notified by the Government for purposes of clause (4) of article 15 of the Constitution. 19 (2) The land allotted to a person for the use of house-site or transferred for agriculture or for the purposes ancillary thereto, shall be assigned free of cost.

(3) XXXX (4) Any transfer of the land under this section shall be subject to-

(i) the condition that the land shall not be alienated by the transferee by way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease or in any manner whatsoever otherwise than by way of mortgage in favour of the Government a bank or a co-operative society, including a land mortgage bank; and

(ii) the condition that where the land transferred is an orchard, the transferee shall continue to maintain such land as an orchard; and

(iii) such other conditions as may be prescribed. (5) Any alienation effected or other act done in respect of any land in violation of the conditions specified in sub-section (4) shall be null and void; and the Tahsildar shall resume the land after giving an opportunity to the persons affected of making a representation in this behalf.

(6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Government may-

(i) lease out any land vesting in them under this Act for such purposes and on such terms and conditions as may be specified by them; or

(ii) reserve such land for any common use or benefit of the community, or,

(iii) utilize/sell such lands for infrastructure/industrial development or any such public purpose. 20

18. Thus, if there is any violation of conditions by the father of the petitioners or the other assignees/allottees, respondents have power to resume the same by following the procedure laid down under law including issuing notice and affording them an opportunity. The A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 ( for short, 'the Act, 1977') also deals with the procedure for prohibition of transfer of assigned lands.

19. Section 3 of the Act, 1977 deals with prohibition of transfers of assigned lands Section 4 of the said Act, deals with consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3 and the same are extracted below:-

Section 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 relating to such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred; and accordingly 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 land, either by purchase, gift, Lease 21 (except in the case of Lease to the Andhra Pradesh Green Energy Corporation Ltd., for use as deemed fit and including for usage of non-agriculture purpose), mortgage, exchange or otherwise.

2A. No assignee shall transfer any assigned house site, and no person shall acquire any assigned house site, either by purchase, gift, Lease (except in the case of Lease to the Andhra Pradesh Green Energy Corporation Ltd., for use as deemed fit and including for usage of non-agriculture purpose)], mortgage, exchange or otherwise, till completion of the period of 20 years from the date of assignment. 2B. Where the assigned House site was alienated by the assignee as on the date of commencement of this Act, such house site shall be regularized in favour of the alienee as a one-time measure. 2C. The eligible family shall be assigned house site only once in life time.

(3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provision of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) shall be deemed to be null 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 decree 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 from 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 house-site on the date of such commencement.

Section 4. Consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3 - (1) If, in any case, the District Collector or any other officer not below the rank of a Mandal Revenue Officer, authorised by him in this behalf, is satisfied that the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3, have been contravened in respect of any assigned land, he may, by order

(a) take possession of the assigned land after evicting the person in possession after such written notice as the Collector or Mandal Revenue Officer may deem reasonable and any crop or other produce raised on such land shall be liable to forfeiture and any building or other construction erected or anything deposited, thereon shall also be forfeited, if not removed by him, after such notice, as the Collector or the Mandal Revenue Officer may direct Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector or Mandal Revenue Officer and any property forfeited shall be disposed of as the Collector or Mandal Revenue Officer may direct; and;

(b) (i): reassign the said resumed land, other than those lands/areas as may be notified by the Government from time to time in public interest and for public purpose, to the transferee who purchased the land in good faith and for valuable consideration on or before 29th January, 2007, subject to the condition that he/she is landless poor person, and is in occupation of the land by using the said land for agriculture or as house site, as on the date of taking possession by eviction:

Provided that the reassignment in case of transferee shall be limited to only such an extent that the total holding of 23 the reassignee including any other land held by him/her does not exceed 5.00 Acres dry land or 2 ½ Acres wet land:

Provided further that where the transferee who has purchased the land and got reassignment of it, or his legal heir, transfers the reassigned land, the land shall be resumed for 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 public 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 other eligible landless poor person:

Provided that the restoration of land shall be limited to only 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 ½ Acres wet land:

Provided further that where 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/area, the 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 Utility, Infrastructure Development, 24 promotion of industries and Tourism or for any other public purpose;

C. In the areas which may be notified by Government from time to time, time, lands resumed under clause 4(a) above, shall be utilized 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 Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Act II of 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 Collector shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case and if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause and that such resistance or obstruction still continues, may issue a warrant for arrest of the said person and on his appearance commit him to close custody in the office of the Collector or of any Mandal Revenue Officer for such period not exceeding thirty days as may be necessary to prevent the continuance of such obstruction or resistance or may send him with a warrant in the form of schedule for imprisonment in the civil jail of the District for the like period:

Provided that no person so committed or imprisoned under this section shall be liable to be prosecuted under sections 183, 186 or 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act No.45 of 1860) in respect of the same facts.

(3) Any person who unauthorisedly re-enters and occupies any land from which he was evicted under this section, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend upto six months or with fine upto rupees five thousand or with both.

(4). Any order passed in revision under section 4B and subject to such order, the decision in appeal under section 4A and subject to the said orders in revision and appeal, any order passed under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken by any officer or authority or Government in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.

(5) For the purposes of this section, where any assigned land is in possession of a person, other than the original assignee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that there is a contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3. 4A. APPEAL -

(1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Mandal Revenue officer under sub-section (1) of section 4, may within ninety days from the date of receipt by him of such order appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer.

(2) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under sub-section (1) of section 4 may, within ninety days from the date of receipt by him of such order appeal to the District Collector.

4B. REVISION -

(1) The District Collector may in respect of any proceeding not being a proceeding covered by sub-section (2) of section 4A on an application made to him and the Government may in respect of any proceedings either suo motu or on an application made to them, call for and examine the record of any officer subordinate to him or them to satisfy himself or themselves as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order taken or passed therein, and if in any case, it appears to the District Collector or as the case may be to the Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, they may pass orders accordingly:

Provided that every application for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceeding, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant. (2) No order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under sub section (1), unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation.

(3) The District Collector or the Government as the case may be, may also suspend the execution of the decision or order pending exercise of their power under sub-section (1).

20. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 are contending that father of the petitioners and other assignees/allottees violated the conditions of allotment/assignment and therefore, the resumption orders were issued.

21. As discussed supra, vide proceedings dated 15.04.1998, the RDO, Chevella, passed resumption orders directing the authorized MRO, Rajendra Nagar to take possession of the land to government custody. It was addressed to the individuals, making a copy to the MRO, Rajendra Nagar. But the name of the petitioners' father is not there. It was not marked to the father of the petitioner. They have not filed any documents to show that the notice and the said resumption proceedings dated 15.04.1998 were served on the petitioners' father. However, Sri G.Narsimha and 19 others filed writ petition vide W.P.No.8612 of 2000 challenging the show cause notice dated 19.11.1997 and the said resumption proceedings dated 15.04.1998. This Court allowed the said writ petition setting aside the said show cause notice and directed the petitioners therein to submit explanation within four (4) weeks to the said show cause notice and directed the respondents therein to consider the same and dispose of. Till such time, this Court directed the respondents therein not to evict the petitioners therein in the subject land which are in their possession. Thereafter, the RDO, Chevella passed resumption dated 15.11.2002. The said G.Narsimha and others 28 filed writ petition vide W.P.No.24120 of 2002 challenging the said resumption proceedings. Vide order dated 30.04.2008, this Court allowed the said writ petition setting aside the proceedings dated 15.11.2002 on imposition of costs on RDO, Chevella.

22. The said facts would reveal that resumption proceedings were passed without putting father of the petitioners and other assignees on notice and affording them an opportunity. Now the respondents cannot contend that the petitioners' father did not challenge the resumption proceedings.

23. It is also further contended by the respondents that father of the petitioners and other assignees/allottees formed into an Association in the name of and style of 'Arundati Welfare Association (Regd.No.1889 of 2007), requested the respondent authorities to allot 800 sq.yards of developed area to the allottees/assignees who have documents such as pattadar passbooks and title deeds and 200 sq.yards to the encroachers who are in possession of the property. They further contended that the President of the said Association submitted affidavits stating that they would withdraw the Court cases if any, and also abide by the 29 said undertaking. They have also submitted list of beneficiaries/assignees/allottees. The name of the petitioners' father is also there. As per the said understanding, respondents have allotted 800 and 200 sq.yards and also executed two conveyance deeds in their favour. In proof of the same, respondents filed copies of three deeds of conveyance all dated 03.06.2023 and also places reliance on memo dated 26.04.2022 and proceedings dated 31.12.2022.

24. It is the specific contention of the petitioners herein that neither the petitioners nor their father is aware of the said facts. They did not give any authorization to the President of the said Association. The signature of the petitioners' father was forged. However, no conveyance deed was executed in favour of the petitioners' father. Even the 1st petitioner is in possession of 200 sq.yards other than the aforesaid subject property. Conveyance deed was not executed in favour of the 1st petitioner.

25. It is also relevant to note that the President of the said Association Sri Kurani Balraj, Sri K.Sadanandan @ K.S.Nandan (Ex-President) filed W.P.No.29071 of 2024 against the respondents 30 herein and M/s Prestige Projects Private Limited to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 7 in not conducting survey and Panchanama and demarcating 26 Acres of land in Survey Nos. 282, 283, 284 as per proceedings No. LC1/6568/2008 dated 31/12/2022, further not demarcating the plots of land conveyed in favour, 66 Assignees and encroachers as per conveyance deeds executed in their favour and handover the same to the assignees/allottees as illegal. They sought a consequential direction to them to conduct survey, Panchanama and handover the respective plots of land to the assignees/allottees as per their conveyance deeds or in the alternative declare that the action of the State in conducting e- auction dated 10.08.2023 without demarcating the land admeasuring Ac 26.00 Gts, in Sy. Nos. 282, 283 and 294 and handing over the same to the allottees as illegal. They also sought to declare the documents executed in favour of 8th respondent therein i.e. M/s Prestige Project Private Limited and others bearing document No.12519/2023, 11519/23, 11520/23, dated 08.12.2023 and 01.11.2023 respectively as null and void. They also sought for consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 to 7 therein to hand 31 over the respective extents of land to all the original assignees of the land as per their original assignment deeds. The said writ petition is pending.

26. The aforesaid facts would reveal that respondents though claimed that the petitioners' father violated the allotment conditions and transferred the subject property to S.K. Developers, resumption proceedings were issued by following due procedure laid down under the Act, 1977 and Act, 1973, but they have not filed any documents in proof of the same. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 have to mandatorily follow the procedure laid down under law and if there is any violation of conditions of allotment/assignment by the father of the petitioners. They cannot pass resumption orders without following due procedure. They cannot rely upon the affidavits/undertakings given by the President and former President of the aforesaid Association. They have to specifically verify with regard to consent, if any, given by the father of the petitioners to submit the said undertaking to the President and Ex-President of aforesaid Association and whether the father of the petitioners is a Member of the said Association or not.

27. Even according to the respondent Nos.3 to 6, the subject land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 situated at Budwel Village was assigned to father of the petitioners. Therefore, necessarily they have to follow the procedure laid down under Act, 1977 and Act, 1973 if the father of the petitioners violates any conditions of allotment. It is the specific case of the petitioners that their father never sold the subject property to S.K. Developers as alleged by respondents. Even then, respondents did not file any proof to substantiate their contentions. Without considering the said aspects, respondent Nos.3 issued the subject e- auction notice dated 02.08.2023 proposing auction to be conducted on 10.08.2023.

28. It is also apt to note that this Court vide order dated 09.08.2023 directed 3rd respondent to proceed with the auction to be held on 10.08.2023, however, they are directed to make an endorsement in sale of the allotment letter in respect of plots 14 and 15 stating that the said plots will be confirmed subject to outcome of the writ petition.

29. It is also relevant to note that the successful bidders in respect of plot Nos.14 and 15 filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.26823 and 27310 of 2024 alleging that 3rd respondent did not inform filing of the said writ petition by the petitioners herein, interim order dated 09.08.2023 granted by this Court to them. Though the 3rd respondent in the tender notification dated 02.08.2023 stated that the subject property is unencumbered, there is no litigation. They have not informed the said fact to them. They have paid the entire amount in terms of the auction notice. Thereafter, they came to know about the pendency of the present writ petition and interim order granted by this Court. Therefore, they have filed the aforesaid two writ petitions to refund the amount paid by them along with the interest at the rate of 18% in respect of plot Nos.14 and 15.

30. Perusal of the proceedings dated 31.12.2022 would reveal that vide order dated 30.04.2008 in W.P.No.24120 of 2002, this Court set aside the resumption proceedings dated 15.11.2002 of RDO, Chevella Division.

31. Vide proceedings dated 18.12.2008, 6th respondent/Tahsildar informed 4th respondent/the District Collector that 66 assignees and 82 encroachers are the land losers of the subject land, they have agreed as per package and accepted the plot compensation as follows:-

a. For Nos.66 assignees who are having pattadar passbooks an extent of 800 sq.yards in HUDA (HMDA) developed lay out is to be allotted in lieu of land lost by them. b. For Nos.82 encroachers/cultivators who do not possess any title, an extent of 200 sq.yards be allotted in lieu of the land lost.

c. 3rd respondent/Metropolitan Commissioner, HMDA has submitted a report dated 04.08.2009 to the 1st respondent stating that 3rd respondent has taken over advance possession of the government land to an extent of 164.35 guntas in Sy.No.282 to 290 and 296 of Budwel village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal. He stated that as the lands are covered by Court litigations, it is decided to negotiate with the assignees/allottees for compensation settlement. 35 The Committee of the District Collector, Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Estate Officer, HMDA was negotiated with the assignees for compensation settlement.

d. 66 Assignees and 82 encroachers/cultivators have agreed for settlement for rehabilitation depending upon the planning regulations of HMDA on the assumption that the 60% of the land can be plotted.

e. Vide memos dated 19.08.2011 and 16.04.2012, Government which forwarding a copy of representation filed by the Members of Arundhati Welfare Association (Land Losers) and requested to examine the plea made by the assignees for providing additional land to an extent of Ac.4.00 guntas, in addition to the land of Ac.22.05 guntas already handed over and furnish a detailed report through CCLA for taking further action in the matter. f. Vide letter dated 07.06.2014, he sent a detailed report to CCLA stating that as per the calculation with reference to HMDA norms for plot compensation with HMDA 36 developed layout, total extent for 66 assignees at the rate of 800 sq.yards and 82 encroachers at the rate of 200 sq.yards is arrived at Ac.26.05 guntas but only an extent of Ac.22.03 guntas has been compensated by both the departments i.e. HUDA and Tourism Department. Thus, there is shortfall of Ac.4.02 guntas. Therefore, he sought CCLA to issue necessary orders whether to reduce the extents of plot compensation to 700sq.yards and 150sq.yards respectively along with alienable rights as against proposed extents of 800 and 200 sq.yards and also issue orders with regard to additional land to an extent of Ac.4.02 guntas.

g. There is also reference to the communication of minutes of TSMLA dated 07.11.2006 by CCLA.

h. Ultimately, vide memo dated 26.04.2022, Government permitted the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District for utilization of the land for Ac.26.00 guntas in a corner of the subject land without disturbing the connectivity for the remaining land of Ac.255.00 guntas duly keeping in 37 view of the interests of Government, for making the said land of Ac.26.00 guntas into plots and to allot the same to the subject assignees and encroachers as compensation, subject to relinquishment of their rights over the land and withdrawal of court cases, if any.

i. It is also further stated that the balance land to an extent of Ac. 255.00 guntas in subject land shall be reserved for future requirement of the Government and same allocated including IT and or others.

j. President, Telangana raithu Sangham, Budwel Village has submitted representation dated 14.11.2022, 15.11.2022 to the Government stating that the Government has acquired the land to an extent of Ac.280.00 guntas and handed over to the HMDA and Tourism Department promising to allot plot compensation to 66 assignees at the rate of 800 sq. yards and to 82 encroachers at the rate of 200 sq.yards per acre.

k. He has further requested to allot the land to an extent of Ac.26.00 guntas out of total extent of Ac.284.00 guntas 38 in Sy.Nos.282 to 299 of Budwel village as per the government agreement for the land-lost Dalith farmers of land victims.

l. There is also reference to the survey conducted by Mandal Surveyor and location sketch submitted by him. Referring to the same, in the proceedings dated 31.12.2022, 4th respondent/District Collector stated that as per the orders of the Government dated 26.04.2022, 6th respondent was directed to demarcate the land to an extent of Ac.26.00 in Sy.Nos. 282, 283, 284 as per the sketch submitted by the Mandal Surveyor, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and hand over possession of the same to HMDA for making the subject land into plots and allot the same to 66 Assignees at the rate of 800 sq.yards per Assignee, 82 encroachers at the rate of 200 sq.yards through lottery/draw and hand over to the assignees/encroachers as compensation, subject to relinquishment of their rights over the land and withdrawal of Court Cases, if any.

32. The aforesaid proceedings dated 31.12.2022 of 4th respondent /District Collector and memo dated 26.04.2022 of Chief Secretary to Government are in violation of principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under POT Act, 1977 and Act, 1973. In the list of patta holders mentioned in memo dated 26.04.2022, the name of the petitioners' father is not there. The petitioners' father was not put on notice and opportunity was not even afforded. Even, according to respondent Nos.2 to 6, 1st petitioner is in possession of land in the aforesaid survey numbers of Budwel Village. Therefore, he is entitled to 200 sq.yards of land. The same was not assigned.

33. At the cost of repetition, as stated supra, the said Kurani Balraj, President, and Sri K.Sadanandan @ K.S.Nandan (Ex- President) of Association gave consent affidavits on 23.10.2010. The Said Kurani Balraj, President of Association has filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.29071 of 2024 against the respondents therein to declare the action of the Respondents in not conducting survey and Panchanama and demarcating Ac.26.00 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 282, 283, 284, as per proceedings No.LC1/6568/ 40 2008 dated 31/12/2022 and further not demarcating the plots of land conveyed in favour of 66 Assignees and 82 encroachers as per conveyance deeds executed in their favour and handover the same to the assignees / allottees, as illegal and consequently direct them to do so and for certain other reliefs.

34. In the light of the same, the entire action of respondents in issuing auction notice dated 02.08.2023 conducting auction on 10.08.2023 is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of procedure laid down under law.

35. K. Yadamma, filed W.P.No.23179 of 2003 challenging the resumption proceedings dated 17.04.1998 passed by the RDO, Chevella, confirmed by the Joint Collector, dated 18.10.2003. Vide order darted 16.08.2013 this Court set aside the aforesaid resumption proceedings and granted liberty to the respondents therein to initiate fresh action. There is no reference with regard to following procedure laid down under law, in compliance with the said order.

36. It is also relevant to note that on the complaint lodged by one KPV Subbaiah, Police CCS registered a case in 41 Cr.No.194/2022 making certain serious allegations against the accused therein. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 17 including Mr. Somesh Kumar, the then Chief Secretary, K.Chandrasekhar, Tahsildar of Rajendra Nagar Mandal at the relevant point of time. In the said charge sheet, it is stated that the then Chief Secretary issued memo dated 26.04.2022 without obtaining any sanction from the Government and without there being any approval of the Cabinet, impersonation is created and the nature of the land is changed. Thus, it is available for alienation. The same is to the benefit of the accused A.1 to A.4 which is established in view of the conveyance deeds executed by A.17, Sri Somesh Kumar, the then Chief Secretary. The same is acquired in contradiction of law which resulted in large scale fraud and fabrication of the documents. Therefore, A.17 Sri Somesh Kumar, being a public servant and responsible to safeguard public property and rights, caused wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to the accused therein. It is also further stated that a separate 42 charge sheet will be filed against him as and when sanction is granted by Government.

37. It is also apt to note that Sri K. Yadaiah, has executed an agreement of sale dated 21.04.2023 in favour of M/s. A & U lnfra Park Private Limited. Later, the said K. Yadaiah has executed an agreement of sale-cum-GPA in respect of land admeasuring 800 square yards in favour of M/s Vessella Greens. The said firm has also purchased plots from various assignees and encroachers. M/s Vessella Greens filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.110 of 2024 against the respondents therein to declare the inaction of the respondents with regard to physical demarcation of the plots and boundaries of the layout along with the roads by providing all necessary infrastructural facilities pursuant to the layout approved by the Director Planning, HMDA vide letter dated 06.02.2023 in respect of Ac. 26.00 guntas in Sy.Nos. 282 283 and 284 of Budvel village Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Vide order dated 04.01.2024, this Court granted interim direction to respondents 2 to 5 therein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2023, for survey and demarcation of the 43 subject land, by issuing notice to petitioner and all other interested persons, in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said writ petition is also pending.

38. The aforesaid facts would reveal that respondents have not followed the due procedure laid down under law. Therefore, the impugned auction notice dated 10.08.2023 is liable to set aside.

39. Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Binapani Dei (supra) wherein it is held by the Apex Court that it is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would therefore arise from super-added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case. 44

40. Learned Advocate General places reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Gurdip Singh Ubain and Yadaiah (supra) and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Yesaiah died by legal heirs (supra). The facts of the cases therein are different to the facts of the present cases.

41. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents did not follow the procedure laid down under law while passing resumption orders and also issuance of auction notice dated 02.08.2023 proposing to conduct auction dated 10.08.2023 in respect of subject property. Therefore, e-auction dated 10.08.2023 conducted by 3rd respondent in respect of subject property i.e. the land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 of Budwel Village is arbitrary and illegal. The same is liable to be set aside.

42. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. E-auction dated 10.08.2023 conducted by 3rd respondent in respect of subject property of the land admeasuring Ac.4.19 guntas in Sy.No.288/4 of Budwel Village is set aside. Respondent No.4/District Collector is directed to consider the representation dated 07.12.2020 submitted 45 by father of the petitioners and pass orders in accordance with law, by putting the petitioners on notice and affording them an opportunity. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no order as to costs.

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ +JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Date:02.05.2025.

vvr

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Telangana High Court