Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Having come to know about resumption proceedings, from the counter filed in WP.No.2649 of 2010, the petitioners filed WP.No.21088 of 2012 challenging the resumption order dated 08.02.2002. The petitioners stated that the resumption order was passed by the MRO unilaterally without following the provisions of law. The petitioners neither had knowledge of resumption orders, nor any notice have been issued and served on them.

7. In the counter affidavit filed in WP.No.21088 of 2012, the respondent No.2 stated that Form-I notices were issued to the petitioners. Subsequently, orders dated 08.02.2002 were passed resuming the lands to the Government; later, the lands were allotted to APHB. The petitioners have not filed sale deeds to show that the lands have been purchased by them from the assignees. In any case, the lands are assigned lands. Thus, the sale transactions are hit by Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The said Act is a special enactment. It, thus, overrides the other laws. Moreover, the compensation awarded to the petitioners cannot be taken as approval of their title. For, originally the lands belonged to the Government; the lands were assigned to landless poor in the year 1961. Hence, any sale deeds executed in contravention of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 are null and void.

8. On appreciation of the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. According to the learned Single Judge no notice was issued to the petitioners before resumption orders were passed. Therefore, the procedure, which is mandatory under Section 4 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 calling for claims before resumption of land, has not been followed by the respondent authorities. The learned Single Judge also pointed out that the names of the assignees have been shown in the pattadar column continuously for a period of thirty-seven years. Hence, the authorities cannot exercise suo motu powers for correcting entries after a period of thirty-seven years. Thus, the resumption is not legally permissible.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not served with any notice before passing the impugned resumption order. Even if the lands are assigned lands, the sale of the said lands is per se not prohibited under law unless there is a condition of non-alienation in the assignment pattas. The assignment pattas were not placed on record by the Government. Even the MRO did not bother to look into the assignment pattas. In the absence of assignment pattas, available on record, it cannot be assumed that the sale transactions of so-called assigned lands are hit by the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. In the resumption order dated 08.02.2002, passed by the MRO, though it is stated that notices have been served on the petitioners under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 1977, there is no proof filed regarding the said assertion.

15. As borne out from the record, the original purchasers from the assignees in the year 1966 and subsequent purchasers have not been issued notices. The petitioners, who purchased in the year 1966-67, are alleged to have violated the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. Unless it is clear that initial sale in the year 1966 is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, an automatic conclusion cannot be drawn that subsequent sales made in the year 1996-97 are hit by the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The violation, if any, is not by the sale deed executed in the year 1996-97. In fact, the violation, if any, was under the sale deeds executed in the year 1965/1966. Initiation of resumption proceedings against the petitioners without issuing notices to the original purchasers of assigned lands in the year 1965/1966 is arbitrary and unsustainable. Even if the initial violation is taken from the year 1965/1966, it is almost after more than thirty-five years the resumption proceedings were issued. Hence, the resumption orders, having been passed thirty-five years from the date of first set of transactions in the year 1966, are arbitrary.