IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 22052 of 2008 Between: Sri P.C. Reddy S/o. P.C.H.A.V. Reddy R/o. Staff Quarters, H.P.S., Begumpet, Hyderabad-16. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakidi-ka-pool, Hyderabad. 3 The Land Acquisition Officer, HUDA, Block-B, D.C.C. Tarnaka, Secunderabad- 500007. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 The Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 herein in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the land in his possession situated in Sy.No.50/117, 50/11, 50/32, admeasuring Ac.4.00 cents at Madanpalli Village, Shamshabad Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, without following the procedure contemplated under L.A. Act 1894, without making payment of compensation and treating the said land as "Laoni Patta" by acting in ignorance of the entries existing in Revenue Records of Kasra Pahani and Chesala Pahani, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitional and violative of Art. 14 and 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in his possession situated in Sy.No.50/117, 50/11, 50/32, admeasuring Ac.4.00 cents at Madanpalli Village, Shamshabad Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, without following due process of law by duly recognizing the said land as Patta Lands of the petitioner and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NAGAM.CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22052 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in his possession in Survey Nos.50/117, 50/11 and 50/32 admeasuring 4.00 acres situated at Madanpalli Vilalge, Shamshabad Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, without following the procedure as required under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and without making payment of compensation and treating the said land as a “Laoni Patta” by acting in ignorance of the entries in revenue records of Khasra Pahani and Chesala Pahani as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14,21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in his possession without following the due process of law. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 4.00 acres in Survey No. 50/117, 50/11 and 50/32 of Madanpalli Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under a deed of agreement of sale-cum- G.P.A., dated 31.8.2006 registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad vide document No. 10453 of 2006. Further, the vendors of the petitioner, namely, 1) Ashok Kumar Jain, 2) Sanjay Kumar Jain and 3) Avinash Kumar Jain have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property in pursuance of the execution of a registered sale deed dated 26.5.2005 by their vendors, namely, 1) Vartia Devia, 2) Vartia Gimia and 3) Vartia Munia under document No. 7322 of 2005. The said vendors being the legal heirs of one Tikya, who was the owner of the land in Survey No. 50 has purchased the said property from one Ratna Reddy, who was the pattadar. Tikya was also incidentally the protected tenant in the said land having purchased the same from the said owner and holder of the property and thus, he became the absolute owner. Further, Tikya’s name has also been entered as purchaser from Ratna Reddy at Column No.12 of Chesala Pahani and entries to that effect have been made in the revenue records such as Khasra Pahani and Chesala Pahani for the years 1954-55 and 1955-58 respectively, which were continuously reflected in all the revenue records for the subsequent years. Thus, the said vendors have been continuously in possession and enjoyment of the said land in their own right and title. It is also stated that the predecessors in title of the vendors of the petitioner have verified the documents, title deeds, pattadar passbooks and have obtained a Certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, confirming their right, title and ownership of the said land and subsequently executed sale deeds. Thus, the petitioner claims title to the property through his vendors and the status of the land is being recognized and confirmed as patta land; that the right, title and possession of the petitioner is indefeasible, which cannot be interdicted without due process of law. Further, it appears that the respondents have initiated land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of acquiring this piece of land also along with a large extent of land in various other survey numbers. According to the petitioner, the respondents have been informed of the legitimate entitlement, right, title and possession of the petitioner. In spite of the same, in utter disregard to his title, the respondents have resorted to dispossess him and acquired the land for laying the road without initiating the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to extract the relevant portion of the counter, which read thus: “5. It is submitted that as per Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 the extent of land is recorded as Ac.55-16 gts., and classified as “poramboke Sarkari” and this entry was struck off and an entry was made with different ink mentioning the following in the pattadar column “Ratna Reddy, adalath High Court Faisla Nishan 83 –1352 Fasli”. Further the name of Rathna Reddy S/o. Lohit Reddy was also recorded in the occupant column but was later struck off and written as “Sarkari” by the Naib Tahsildar, Land Census, Shabad Taluk, Hyderabad District on 17.5.1955. As per the Seshala Pahani 1955-58 the land in Sy. No. 50 was recorded in the name of various persons, but the classification of the land was recorded as “poramboke patta”. 11. Further, it is submitted that the land in Sy. No. 50/117 of Madanpally Village to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts. was assigned to Seeta, W/o. Chandra, Sy. No.50/11 of Madanpally village to an extent of Ac.3.00 was assigned to Rediya, S/o. Bikya and Sy. No.50/32 of Madanpally Village to an extent of Ac.4-00 was assigned to Heerya, S/o. Rooplal and the names of the assignees have been continuously recorded in the pahanies from the year 1978-79 onwards and in the event of purchase of the above assigned lands, the lands are liable to be resumed to the Government as it attracts the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.” It is further stated in the counter affidavit that, the petitioner is trying to regularize the illegal purchase of government assigned lands, allotted in favour of the original assignees. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and has to be dismissed. It appears in the meanwhile, the petitioner sought to sell a piece of land out of these 4.00 acres and presented a sale deed before the Registering Authority. The same was not registered. Therefore, W.P.M.P. No. 34918 of 2008 was filed seeking a direction to the Respondent-Sub- Registrar, Shamshabad to register the said document presented by the petitioner. The 6th respondent filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and it is asserted that these lands were notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Therefore, there is a prohibition for registering such lands. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. The facts are not much in dispute. Though the petitioner has claimed that he purchased the land from the predecessors in title under a registered sale deed, from the counter filed by the respondents, it is seen that the lands were assigned in favour of few individuals and according to the Government, these lands were purchased by the petitioner or their predecessors in title and such a purchase of the assigned land itself is illegal. May be, the purchase of such lands is illegal, but, unless and until the issue has been examined as required under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, no further steps could have been taken and the petitioner could not have been denied his possession and entitlement as to receiving compensation etc. Admittedly, no procedure as required under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been invoked for the purpose of acquiring this piece of land. It is the case of the respondents that there is no necessity of initiating any Land Acquisition Proceedings in view of the fact that these are all assigned lands. Once this is the stand taken by the parties, it can be concluded that the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners without invoking the provisions of either Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 or under any other Act for the time being in force. The respondents simply brushed aside the claim of the petitioner saying that the land in question is an assigned land and the same is liable to be resumed. If it is really an assigned land, the petitioner is entitled to have a notice and enquiry as required under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. No such procedure was followed. Further the respondents are trying to hush up everything by saying that there is no necessity of invoking the land acquisition proceedings or intimation being given to the petitioner and that there is no necessity to conduct enquiry under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Thus, the approach adopted by the respondents is ex-facie illegal and liable to be deprecated. If really the lands are assigned lands, it is always open for the respondents to issue an appropriate notice as required under law and conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter. If it is found that the lands are assigned lands, then there is no necessity of invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and on the other hand, if it is proved that the petitioner is a landless poor person, he is also entitled for compensation. Such an exercise was not done by the respondents. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to conduct a detailed enquiry as to the entitlement of the petitioner as to the land and Compensation / Exgratia and proceed with the matter as per law. No costs. Till such time the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from his lands. _______________ C.V. RAMULU,J DATE: 17th March, 2009 pnb