Telangana High Court
Ravi Venkata Ramana vs The State Of Telangana on 14 October, 2024
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.22877 of 2023
ORDER:
The impugned proceedings No.E1/1064-2016-1 dated 06.06.2023 was passed by the respondent No.2-District Collector, Sangareddy District, in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 166-B of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, cancelling the assignment of the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 guntas situated in Sy.No.9 of Osman Nagar Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, granted to the original assignee vide assignment proceedings No.B/1237/2002 dated 28.12.2002 issued by the respondent No.5 - Tahsildar, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.
2. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioners, in brief, are as under:
(a) Originally one viz. Govu Shankaraiah S/o. Mallaiah, a Freedom Fighter made an application for assignment of land to the respondent No.5. The application was considered by the respondent No.5 vide Proceedings No.B/1237/2002 dated 28.12.2002 and the assignment orders were issued assigning Ac.5.00 guntas land (hereinafter referred to as assigned land) in favour of Sri Govu Shankaraiah in Sy.No.9, Osman Nagar Village, 2 Ramachandrapuram Mandal. Thereafter, the said Shankaraiah was also issued Final Patta Certificate by the respondent No.5 vide proceedings No.B/1237/2002. Consequently, the respondent No.5 also issued patta passbooks and title deeds to Govu Shankaraiah vide Patta Pass Book No.360 and Nos.425914 and 446347 respectively and his name was entered as pattadar and possessor in pahanies, which is evident from Pahani for the year 2006-2007.
(b) The said Shankaraiah made an application to the respondent authorities seeking permission to alienate the assigned land and accordingly a No Objection Certificate was issued by the respondent No.2-Collector on 17.05.2005 vide letter No.E1/3072/2005. Thereafter, the original assignee, Govu Shankaraiah, sold the property to Syed Jameel and Syed Naseem by way of registered sale deed bearing Document No.31580/2006, dated 21.12.2006 as per the NOC issued by the Collector, Medak. Thereafter the said Shankaraiah died in the year 2007.
(c) Subsequently, Syed Jameel and Syed Naseem sold the assigned land to Ravi Venkataramana (petitioner No.1) by way of registered Sale Deed bearing document No.8229/2009 dated 16.09.2009, who, in turn, sold the assigned land to the petitioners No.4 and 5 under registered sale deeds bearing documents Nos.11714/2009 and 11715/2009 dated 29.12.2009. 3
(d) While so, the respondent No.3-Joint Collector, Sangareddy issued a show cause notice No.E1/1064/2016-1 dated 26.03.2016 to the petitioners stating that the Tahsildar, Ramchandrapuram, has not followed procedure in assigning the land in favour of freedom fighters; no permission was obtained by the District Collector from the Government for assigning the land to freedom fighters; further the assignee is native of Sangareddy whereas the land that has been allotted is in Ramachandrapuram Mandal; the assignee has given an affidavit before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramchandrapuram, stating that he was allotted Government land at Cheriyal village of Sangareddy Mandal under freedom fighter quota and without verifying the said fact, the MRO has made assignment in Osman Nagar; the MRO without obtaining any permission from HMDA assigned the land to the assignee, though the land comes under purview of HMDA limits; Shankaraiah sold the land to Syed Jameel and Syed Naseem within four years from the date of assignment whereas as per G.O.Ms.No.1045 Revenue (Assn.I) Department dated 15.12.2004 the freedom fighters are free to sell away the assigned lands only after ten years; the assignee obtained NOC from the Joint Collector, Medak, dated 17.05.2005 with a malafide intention to sell the Government land; on verification of record and the Tahsildar report, prima facie, it was noticed that the very assignment is irregular and obtained 4 double assignment by playing fraud and as such, the same is liable for cancellation.
(e) The petitioners submitted explanation dated 26.04.2016 to the show cause notice contending that the assigned land was sold by the assignee after obtaining NOC from the District Collector and the land has changed several hands. That upon consideration of explanation submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 was passed by the respondent No.2.
3. Mr. P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Mr. N. Vishal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that there is delay of 19 years in cancelling the assignment, which us unreasonable. Though there is no limitation to exercise power under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act, such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. By any measure, 19 years is unreasonable. The petitioners are no way concerned as to whether the lands are within HMDA limits or not. If permission was to be taken from HMDA, it was the responsibility of the revenue authorities and it is an internal arrangement between them. The assignment is cancelled on the ground that it is irregular and no element of fraud is involved. There is no allegation that the assignee has indulged in fraud and no where the alleged irregular 5 assignment is attributable to the assignee. In WP.No.26131 of 2016 and batch, this Court, by order dated 12.08.2021, granted relief to the petitioners therein, in similar circumstances, by setting aside the show case notices issued to the purchasers of assigned land, in exercise of powers under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act.
4. Mr. Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for Assignment, submitted that the assigned land is situated within the limits of HUDA/HMDA and permission of the said authority was required. Further, the permission of the District Collector was not obtained at the time of the assignment of the land. There was ban of assignment of land within HMDA limits and Osman Nagar was declared as urban area. The common judgment in WP.No.26131 of 2016 and batch is not applicable to the facts of this case. The instant case is about irregular assignment. Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act does not prescribe any limitation. Assuming that there is delay of 19 years, the limitation has to be reckoned from the date of detection of fraud and there are no merits in the writ petition.
5. The respondent No.2 passed the impugned order pointing out the following defects:
(a) Assignment was made in contravention of G.O.Ms.No.411 dated 27.08.1975 through which ban was imposed on assignment 6 of land in Osmannagar Village; (b) that assignment was made without permission of the District Collector in violation of G.O.Ms.No.611 dated 17.07.1911 and during the ban period in the year 2002; (c) permission of the District Collector is not available in the files or records and irregular assignment was made without obtaining permission of the District Collector and (d) though NOC was granted by the then Joint Collector, it is without permission of the District Collector and it will be treated as irregular assignment and the same will have no sanctity.
6. In the common order dated 12.08.2021 in WP.No.26131 of 2016 and batch, it was observed by the learned Judge that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, assigned the land to one K. Laxminarayana, who was a freedom fighter, in File No.B/4336/97 dated 10.02.1997 under political sufferers quota. The Joint Collector, Medak District, by invoking the power under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act issued show cause notice dated 26.07.2003 to the original assignee, Laxminarayana. As the original assignee died, his son appeared before the Joint Collector and order dated 15.01.2005 was passed in proceedings No.F3/7194/97 dropping action contemplated to cancel the assignment granted in favour of Laxminarayana. Based on the application of the legal heirs of the original assignee, the District Collector issued NOC dated 17.05.2005 and the assigned land was 7 alienated in favour of third parties, who, in turn, sold the land to the petitioners therein.
7. Learned Judge noted in Para 14 of the aforesaid common order that the Joint Collector dropped the proceedings against the original assignee by exercising power under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act in the year 2005 and the same authority cannot review the proceedings that too after long lapse of 11 years. Further, it was noted that the District Collector issued NOC dated 17.05.2005 permitting the legal heirs of the assignee to alienate the assigned land. The learned Judge observed that it is not the case of the Government that NOC issued by the District Collector is obtained by fraud. The impugned show cause notices were set aside and the writ petitions were allowed by holding that the authority, which has earlier issued the show cause notice, has no authority or jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice in the writ petitions and that the earlier show cause notice issued by the Joint Collector was dropped on 15.01.2005 and the same is not mentioned in the impugned show cause notice dated 26.03.2016 and the same authority cannot review the earlier order, for issuance of show cause notice, that too after granting NOC.
8. The facts of the present case are distinguishable as compared to the facts in WP.No.26131 of 2016 and batch dated 8 12.08.2021. Though there is reference to NOC issued by the District Collector for alienation of assigned land, the main ground on which the writ petitions were allowed was that the earlier show cause notice issued by the Tahsildar dated 15.01.2005 was dropped and the second show cause notice under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act could not have been issued, which would amount to reviewing the earlier show cause notice.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in JT. COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY v. D. NARSING RAO AND OTHERS [Civil Appeal No.325-326 of 2015 and Civil Appeal No.327 of 2015 dated 13.01.2015] and also the judgment of a Division Bench decision of this Court in M. NARSAIAH v. P. RANGA REDDY 1.
10. In D. NARSING RAO's case (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:
In the decision in Collector and others vs. P. Mangamma and others (2003) 4 SCC 488 this Court while dealing with suo motu action against irregular assignments under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 held that it would be hard to give an exact definition of the word "reasonable" and a reasonable period would depend upon the facts of the case concerned and on the facts of the case in which the decision arose, suo motu action 1 2003 (2) ALT 168 (DB) 9 taken after a period of thirty years was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.
In the decision in State of Maharashtra and another vs. Rattanlal (1993) 3 SCC 326 this Court while dealing with revisional power under Section 45 of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling and Holdings)Act, 1961 held that suo motu revisional power may not be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the impugned order, however, where suppression of material facts, namely, existence of the undeclared agricultural land had come to the knowledge of the higher authorities after a long lapse of time, the limitation would start running only from the date of discovery of the fraud or suppression.
In the decision in State of Gujarat vs. Patil Raghav Natha and others (1969) 2 SCC 187 this Court while adverting to Sections 65 and 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 held that though there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211 to revise an order made under Section 65 of the Act, the said power must be exercised in reasonable time and on the facts of the case in which the decision arose, the power came to be exercised more than one year after the order and that was held to be too late.
In the decision in Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim (1997) 6 SCC 71 this Court while dealing with Section 84-C of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1976 held that though the said Section does not prescribe for any time limit for initiation of proceeding such power should be exercised within a reasonable time and on the facts of the case, the suo motu enquiry initiated under the said Section after a period of nine months was held to be beyond reasonable time.
In the decision in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and others vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others 10 (2009) 9 SCC 352 this Court while dealing with the power of revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 held as follows :
"11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time-limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can - be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein.
12. Ordinarily, the reasonable period within which the power of revision may be exercised would be three years under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code subject, of course, to the exceptional circumstances in a given case, but surely exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17 years is not a reasonable time. Invocation of revisional power by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is plainly an abuse of process in the facts and circumstances of the case assuming that the order of the Tahsildar passed on 30-3-1976 is flawed and legally not correct."
In the decision in State of Punjab and others vs. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363 this Court while dealing with the revisional power under Section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 held thus :
11
"17. A bare reading of Section 21 of the Act would reveal that although no period of. Limitation has been prescribed therefor, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time.
18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.
19. Revisional jurisdiction, in our opinion, should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the said Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years..."
In M. NARSAIAH's case (1 supra) it was held as under:
"22. It has been held by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions that powers of revision though no limitation has been prescribed, yet, it has to be exercised within a reasonable time, it would not be open for the Government to alter the extent and unsettle the settled position after a period of nearly 32 years, when the nature of the property has been changed and the third party rights have been crystallised..."
11. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment contended that originally G. Shankaraiah was granted assignment without any permission being granted by the District Collector. The assignment was irregular. Even if NOC is issued by the District Collector in terms of the existing Government orders to enable the freedom fighters to sell away the assigned land, as prior permission of the 12 District Collector was not obtained for assignment of land, the cancellation of assignment under the impugned order is valid.
12. It is not in dispute that NOC was issued by the District Collector on 17.05.2005 and pursuant thereto the assigned land was sold to Syed Jameel and Syed Naseem by way of registered sale deed bearing Document No.31580/2006, dated 21.12.2006. The assigned land was sold in the year 2006 and the show cause notice was issued in the year 2016. By that time, the assigned land changed several hands. The irregular assignment stands on a different footing as compared to assignment granted/obtained by indulging in fraud. It is not the case of the respondents that Govu Shankaraiah was not a freedom fighter and was wrongly granted assigned land under the political sufferers quota. Thereafter, in the year 2006, he obtained NOC and sold the assigned land.
13. Looking from any angle, issuance of show cause notice after 14 years from the date of assignment, 10 years from the date of NOC (for sale) and passing of impugned order after 21 years from the date of assignment, as the case may be, by applying principle of law and yardstick laid down in D. NARSING RAO's case (supra), in the opinion of this Court, appears to be an inordinate delay and unreasonble. Further, the assigned land has changed several hands. The assigned land was alienated by the assignee through 13 registered sale deed having received valuable consideration. Later, under several registered sale deeds, the assigned land was subsequently alienated and ultimately, purchased by the petitioners. At this point of time, if things are unsettled, the petitioners would be put to grave hardship.
14. Merely saying that assignment was irregular and not made by following due procedure would not suffice until the authorities, who assigned the land, are also made equally responsible. There is no information forthcoming from the respondents if any action is taken against the authorities, who made irregular assignment.
15. Thus, considering that there is delay of 14 years from the date of assignment in initiating cancellation proceedings and further, that the assigned land has changed several hands, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 is set aside.
16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order vide proceedings No.E1/1064-2016-1 dated 06.06.2023 is set aside.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J October 14, 2024/DSK