IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7482 of 2000 Between: 1 Smt. Y.S.M.Lakshmi, W/o. Shyam Sunder, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. P.Sharada, W/o. Kumar, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. P.Lakshmi, W/o. Ramulu, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 4 Smt G.Hema, W/o. Raja Gopal, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 5 Smt. Lakshmi, W/o. N.V.U.Bhasker Rao, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 6 Smt. G.Padma, W/o. Ramesh Babu, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 7 Smt. P.Vindya Rani, W/o. Koteshwara Rao, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 8 Smt. Y.Padmavathi, W/o. Ram Mohan, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 9 Smt. Munna Kaur, W/o. Shamshare Singh, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 10 St. G. Rajya Lakshmi, W/o. Illaiah, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 11 Smt. Y.Sreedevi, W/o. Raja Rao, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 12 Smt. M.Prameela, W/o. Gowraiah, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 13 Smt. Sheela, W/o. Lakshman Singh, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 14 Smt. Sailaja, W/o. VSRK Rao, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 15 Smt. G.Seetha, W/o. Shyam Prasad, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 16 Smt. J. Manjula, W/o. Mahesh, R/o. Indiranagar, Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep through Collector, Hyderabad District, At: Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 2 Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, At: Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 3 Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad District, At: Nampally Station Road, Hyderaba. 4 A.Diwaker, S/o. late Lakshminarayana, R/o. Road.No. 14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. R4 impleded as per court order in W.P.M.P.No.30303/01, dt.3.12.2001, .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. K.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY ASSISTED BY MR.B.MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3:GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 06.08.1999 of respondent No.2 whereby he cancelled the D-Form pattas granted in favour of the petitioners in exercise of power under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for short ‘the Act, 1317 Fasli’). At the hearing, Sri K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners submitted that condition No.10 of the patta certificate issued in Form-D empowers the Government to resume the land, if in it’s opinion, any of the conditions of the grant have been contravened. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the instant case, contrary to the conditions of patta, respondent No.2 cancelled the pattas in purported exercise of power under Section 166-B of the Act, 1317 Fasli. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment invited my attention to condition No.8(i) of the patta conditions and submitted that the power to resume the land is vested in the Collector also. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Condition Nos.8 and 10 of the patta conditions read as under: “8. That the Government may resume and re-enter the site in the event of the infringement of any of the conditions of the assignment. (i) If without the previous approval of the Collector in writing, the land is alienated by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease of any kind within a period of ten years from the date of its grant, or ceased to be owned by the original grantee or his legal heirs, owing to sale by process of law, or otherwise, for a like period, the grant will be liable to be resumed by Government who will be entitled to re-enter and take possession of the site without payment of any compensation either for any improvements made to it or for any buildings constructed on it. This prohibition does not however, apply to the hypothecation of the site (together with any building erected on it) to Government under the Land Improvement and Agriculturists Loans Act or to a Cooperative Society, nor does it operate to debar payment of compensation when such lands are subsequently acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The power of resuming the grant and ordering re-entry referred to above will vest in the Collector. (ii) That the grant shall be liable to be revoked by the Collector any time during a period of three years from the date of assignment, if the assignee is not of good behaviour or does not obey any regulations framed for the colony regarding the construction and location of his house or does not kept the site in sanitary condition and shall not be made permanent at the end of the said period unless the Collector is satisfied that the assignee has been of good behaviour, has obeyed any regulations framed for the colony, regarding the construction and location of his house and has kept the site in a sanitary condition. 10. The land shall be resumed, if, on the opinion of the Government, any of the conditions of the grant has been contravened. If any question arises whether there was a contravention of any of the conditions of the grant or not, it shall be referred to the Government and their decision shall be final.” While the main limb of condition No.8 empowered the Government to resume the land, condition No.8(i) also empowered the Collector to exercise the power of resumption. However, again, in condition No.10, the said power is vested in the Government. From a proper analysis of the two conditions, it is quite evident that while the power to resume the land is ordinarily vested in the Government, in certain specific situations, such a power is also vested in the Collector. However, condition No.10 is decisive, because it envisages that if any question arises whether there was a contravention of any of the conditions of the grant or not, it shall be referred to the Government for a decision and it’s decision shall be final. In the instant case, the allegation of contravention of conditions of patta, for which, respondent No.2 resumed the land is seriously disputed by the petitioners. In such a situation, condition No.10 of the patta conditions gets attracted. In my considered opinion, respondent No.2 instead of resuming the land by invoking his power under Section 166-B of the Act, 1317 Fasli, ought to have referred the dispute to the Government for decision as envisaged in condition No.10. In this view of the matter, the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 are set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the show cause notice issued by respondent No.2 and the explanation submitted by the petitioners and take a decision by passing a speaking order. Respondent No.1 shall give the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing before deciding the dispute. Till adjudication of the dispute, the land shall not be allotted/assigned to any party by the Government. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni