IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.21063 of 2001 Between: Imam-E-Zamana Mission, Rep. by its President, Salim Peerbhoy, S/o.Peer Mohammed Haji Ghulam Ali, R/o.6th Floor, Maruthi Heights, Banjara Hills, Road No.1, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring proceedings No.D5/4283/2001 dated;13.7.2001 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction and set aside the same and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE AAR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.21063 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in issuing proceedings No.D5/4283/2001, dated 13-07-2001, as illegal and arbitrary. The impugned proceeding is a notice issued by the 1st respondent stating that the land in Sy.No.199 of Kapra Village is a Government poramboke and an extent of Ac.5-00 each has been assigned in favour of Sri Mandali Vishwanatham and Sri Mandali Hanmantha Rao under the provisions of the A.P.Assigned Rules, from whom, the petitioner claimed to have purchased the said land and, therefore, a notice has been issuing asking the petitioner to appear for enquiry before the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Society registered under the A.P.(Telangana Area) Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli. The main object of the petitioner is to provide free education to needy sections of the society and housing accommodation by constructing houses and allotting the same to the houseless people of the Society at free of cost. In order to meet its aims and objects, the petitioner constructed flats at Moula Ali, Purani Haveli, Qayam Nagar etc., which are being occupied by the poor and downtrodden of the Society. In addition to this, the Society is also providing charitable activities to the deserving persons, destitutes and financial backward people of the Society. The society is being exempted under Section 80(G) of the Income Tax Act and the Collector, Hyderabad District has also after thorough verification and satisfying himself, issued a certificate certifying the petitioner’s society as a Charitable organization, engaged in welfare work and rendering free service to the people. It is further stated that the petitioner had purchased the land admeasuring Ac.10-00 in Sy.Nos.l99/27 and 199/29 situated at Kapra Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, vide registered Sale Deeds, dated 30-10-1994 and 24-11-1994, respectively from one Mitra and others, registered in the office of the Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. The said land was acquired by the petitioner for the purpose of constructing dwelling units for homeless and destitutes. The predecessor in title of the petitioner had purchased the said land vide registered Sale Deed, dated 27-05-1978, registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, City Circle, Mojam Jahi Market, Hyderabad. The said Mitra and others, from whom the petitioner had purchased the property, had in turn purchased the same from one Mr.D.Satyendra Rao, who got the land, vide registered document Nos.312 of 1968 and 313 of 1968, dated 27-02-1968, respectively and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Medchal, from two brothers by name Mandali Hanmantha Rao and Mandali Viswanatham, who are the original owners of the said land. The said Mandali Hanmantha Rao and Viswanatham had obtained permission from the then Tahsildar, Medchal for sale of the property under Sections 47 and 48 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, vide file No.62/4631/67, dated 08-11-1967. The revenue records of the village reflected the names of Mandali Hanmantha Rao and Mandali Viswanatham and the subsequent purchasers as pattadars and possessors of the land. The petitioner, after making due and diligent enquiry and after obtaining copies of all link documents including the proceedings of the then Tahsildar, Medchal, dated 08-11-1967, got the documents registered in its name transferring the property. It is further stated that after registration of the sale deed, the Society made an application for making necessary entries in the revenue records and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, vide proceedings No.B/4464/98, dated 02-06-1999, amended the record of rights register and inducted the name of the petitioner as pattadar. The revenue records reveal that at least from 1967 onwards the land in question is a patta land and the same was never disputed at any point of time nor any claim was made disputing the ownership and title of the petitioner or its predecessors in title. On the other hand, the proceedings of the Tahsildar issued under Sections 47 and 48 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, granting permission to the original owners to sell the land, show that Mandali Hanmantha Rao and Mandali Viswanatham are pattadars of the land. Subsequent to the purchase, the petitioner made applications to the Kapra Municipality as well as the Hyderabad urban Development Authority seeking permission for sanction of plans for construction of houses to be provided to the poor and downtrodden of the society at free of cost. The Mandal Revenue Officer vide proceedings No. A/1535/1999, dated 02-06-19999, and proceedings No.A/3600/2000, dated 30-09-2000, issued no objection certificate for developing the land. While so, the petitioner received impugned notice calling upon it to appear before the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, filed a counter affidavit stating that the revenue records of Kapra Village show that the entire land covered by Sy.Nos.199/27 and 29 admeasuring Ac.10-00 was classified as Sarkari Poramboke and that the said land is assigned in favour of Sri Mandali Hanumantha Rao and Mandali Viswanatham for the purpose of agriculture under the provisions of Assignment Rules. As the said land is a Government land, the assignees are entitled to enjoy the land and that they have no right to sell the same. It is stated that as the land was classified as Government land as per the revenue records of Kapra Village, the proceedings issued by the then Tahsildar, Medchal ,in Ref.No.B2/4631/67, dated 08-11-1967 and that the subsequent proceedings took place in pursuance of the same are null and void. It is stated that as the nature of the schedule land is not conclusively proved as patta land and as such, the possession of the petitioner herein over the land in question is void under the provisions of the Assignment Rules. The 2nd respondent herein submitted a report to the first respondent to initiate action in respect of the land in question. Accordingly, the 1sf respondent issued show-cause notice under Section 9 of ROR Act, 1971, vide File No.D5/4283/01, dated 13- 07-2001, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, on 25-08-2001. Instead of appearing before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, with all documentary evidence available with it, the petitioner approached this court and filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question originally is a patta land and the petitioner is only subsequent purchaser and the petitioner Society purchased the land after due verification of the entire revenue records and, thereafter, the land in question has been mutated in the name of the Society and, therefore, the 1st respondent, who issued the impugned notice, has no jurisdiction and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents while reiterating the counter averments made by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara, stated that the land in question originally classified as Government poramboke and, thereafter, the land admeasuring Ac.5-00 each has been assigned in favour of Sri Mandali Hanumantha Rao and Mandali Viswanatham, who are the brothers and the said land can be enjoyed by the assignees, but not alienable. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right and title over the said land. Having come to know that the land in question is an assigned land, the 1st respondent issued impugned notice. Therefore, the impugned notice does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. A perusal of the impugned notice goes to show that the land in question is originally Government poramboke and an extent of 5 acres each has been assigned in favour of Sri Mandali Vishwannatham and Sri Mandali Hanmantha Rao and the names of the said assignees have been entered as pattadars in the revenue records as per the orders of the then Tahsildar, Medchal in File No.B2/2226/68, dated 23- 01-1969. The said assigned land is heritable but not alienable. Whether the land in question is a government land or patta land, whether the land in question was assigned to the assignees, whether those assignees sold away the land to third parties from whom the petitioner claims to have purchased, are all matters that can be gone into in the enquiry contemplated by the 1st respondent. Admittedly, the impugned order is only a show cause notice issued under the ROR Act. Therefore, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned notice. However, the petitioner can respond to the notice by filing appropriate explanation along with required documents and it is for the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an explanation along with required documents before the 1st respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such explanation, the 1st respondent may consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 7 - 1 1 - 2 0 0 8 P r ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}