K. Samyuktha vs Govt.Of AP

Mr. P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Ch.Siddhartha Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Ms. T.V.Sudha, learned counsel representing Mr. V.Narasimha Gound, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Urban Development Authority for respondent No.5.

Mr. P.Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 9.

Mr. N.Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel representing Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for respondent Nos.10 to 12.

In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for quashment of the order dated 16.02.2006 passed by the Joint Collector and seeks a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.1008 measuring Acs.5-00, situated at Thumkunta Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the husband of the petitioner, namely late K.Keshava Reddy joined the Indian Army on 13.03.1942 and participated in World War II. The husband of the petitioner was discharged from the Indian Army on 12.03.1957.

The erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, sometime in the year 1950, decided to assign the land to ex-servicemen. The State Government, therefore, earmarked an area admeasuring Acs. 5977.03 guntas of land. The land was initially under the possession of Military Estate Officer and was put to use for firing practice and anti-tank exercises by Artillery Station, Bollaram. After the military stopped using the land, the erstwhile State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 23.10.1952 assigning the land to Labour Department of the State Government to rehabilitate the ex-servicemen. In the light of order of the State Government dated 09.01.1958, a cooperative society namely Jawaharnagar Cooperative Land Colonization Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘Society’) was constituted and was registered.

Society allotted land to 149 ex-servicemen. As there were allegations of mismanagement against the managing committee of Society with regard to allotment of the land, the Collector by an order dated 27.10.1968 superseded the committee of Society. A Sub-Registrar of Department of Cooperation was appointed as Special Officer to manage the affairs of Society.

Some of the members of Society submitted a representation to the Collector. The Collector thereupon made a recommendation to the State Government for resumption of the land from Society so that the same could be assigned to the eligible ex-servicemen directly. The State Government accepted the proposal vide G.O.Ms.No.17 dated 05.01.1976. As per the said GO, the land admeasuring Acs. 5977.03 guntas, situated at Malkaram Village, Medchal Taluk, Hyderabad was directed to be resumed from Society and was directed to be assigned to ex-servicemen under the scheme on priority basis. The State Government further directed that the balance of land would be available to be allotted to eligible landless poor of the area.

The State Government issued Memo on 27.05.1976, by which the authorities were directed to follow the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954.

In the aforesaid GO, revised guidelines/rules were prescribed for assignment of Government lands. The revised guidelines inter alia provide that Acs.5.00 of dry land or Acs.2.50 guntas of wet land shall be allotted and the same was to be brought under cultivation within a period of three years. The aforesaid GO further provides that the land is heritable, but not alienable and that the land would be assigned only to those ex-servicemen, who are in continuous possession subsequent to allotment of the land in their favour by Society. Thereafter, a clarification was issued on 07.06.1977, by which the State Government provided that assignment be also made to legal heirs of ex-servicemen, who were in continuous possession of the land in question.

The Tahsildar conducted an enquiry and submitted a proposal on 30.08.1982, in which it was stated that 149 ex-servicemen were the eligible members and they are in possession of the land. It was further pointed out that out of aforesaid 149 ex-servicemen, pattas in D-Form have already been issued to 42 persons. The Tahsildar enclosed a list of the eligible ex-servicemen, as recommended by Zilla Sainik Board, Ranga Reddy District. The Tahsildar also published a notification and it was notified that an enquiry will be conducted in relation to allotment of land by Society and pattas will be issued to all eligible ex-servicemen. After conducting such enquiry, the Tahsildar finalized the names of 102 ex-servicemen.

Some of the ex-servicemen filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.528 of 1980 in which a direction was sought to the District Collector and Tahsildar to issue pattas to them as per the allotment made in their favour by Society. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.01.1986. The order passed by learned Single Judge was challenged in W.A.No.485 of 1986. A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 23.06.1986 disposed of the said writ appeal and held that if the persons in occupation are forced to surrender the land, they would be entitled to make a representation seeking compensation for development of the land. The State Government, in the meanwhile, resumed the entire land from the Society and allotted major chunk of land admeasuring Acs.5020.00 guntas to various organizations and public sector undertakings.

Some of the ex-servicemen filed bunch of writ petitions viz., W.P.No.3912 of 1992 and batch seeking a direction to the respondents to grant patta in favour of land in their occupation situated at Jawaharnagar Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and not to dispossess them from the land in their occupation.

The aforesaid writ petitions were decided by a common order dated 25.03.2004. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

“In the result, in all the writ petitions, except in W.P.Nos.17041 of 2002, 24015 of 2002, 24819 of 2002, 25681 of 2002, 962 of 2003, 2369 of 2003, 13312 of 2003, 14580 of 2003, 18491 of 2003 and 18703 of 2003, the following order is passed.

(i) Wherever the Ex-serviceman has actually in possession of the land and has brought the land under cultivation within a period of three years from the date of allotment to JCLCS, the Mandal Revenue Officer, shall consider the case and regulate the possession by issuing D-form patta in favour of ex-serviceman or his legal heir wherever necessary;

(ii) It shall be open to all the ex-servicemen who are petitioners before this Court to appear before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamirpet Mandal on 15.04.2004 with a representation and necessary material with regard to the status as ex-serviceman and with regard to possession and other particulars when the Mandal Revenue Officer may fix a date for proper enquiry and complete the enquiry within a period of two months thereafter;

(iii) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall submit a detailed report containing case-wise details to the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District who shall sanction/issue patta to eligible ex-servicemen. Till this enquiry is completed, there shall be status quo as on today with regard to possession.

(iv) Insofar as writ petitions in the third group mentioned hereinabove i.e., W.P.Nos.17041 of 2002, 24015 of 2002, 24819 of 2002, 25681 of 2002, 962 of 2003, 2369 of 2003, 13312 of 2003, 14580 of 2003, 18491 of 2003 and 18703 of 2003, the matters are disposed of giving liberty to all the petitioners to seek appropriate relief from the Mandal Revenue Officer for assignment of land. As the allegation that they are in possession of the land is denied, no orders as to possession can be passed in their favour, and the interim orders passed by this Court stand vacated;

(v) It shall be made clear that in no case ex-serviceman or any other person shall be allotted more than Acs.5.00 of agricultural dry land or Acs.2.50 of wet land;

(vi) As it is reported that in W.P.Nos.23914 of 2002, 20427 of 2003 and 21470 of 2003 the petitioners purchased land admeasuring less than 400 square yards from ex-servicemen for the purpose of construction of house, if they are eligible under relevant Government Orders, on payment of market value, their cases may be considered:

All the writ petitions stand disposed in terms of the above orders”.

In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the husband of the petitioner submitted a representation. The Mandal Revenue Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 20.01.2005. The Joint Collector by an order dated 16.02.2006 has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his name neither appears in the list of 102 eligible allottees nor he is in possession of the same. It was further held that the petitioner is not an ex-serviceman and, therefore, not an eligible allottee of the Jawaharnagar Cooperative Land Colonisation Society Limited. Accordingly, the representation submitted by the petitioner for assignment of agricultural land was rejected.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the following documents:

(i) Certificate dated 16.05.1974 issued by the Secretary, Jawaharnagar Cooperative Land Colonisation Society Limited in respect of his claim that land measuring Acs.5-00 in Sy.No.1008 in Thumkunta Sector, Medchal Taluq was allotted to husband of petitioner;

(ii) Certificate dated 04.04.1983 issued by the Taluka Cooperative Officer to demonstrate that the husband of the petitioner was in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.1008, measuring Acs.5-00 in Malkaram Village, Rangareddy District;

(iii) Order dated 28.09.1994 issued by the Department of Sainik Welfare of the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh indicating that a pension of Rs.100/- per month w.e.f., 01.07.1994 was sanctioned in favour of the husband of the petitioner.

(iv) Copy of the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.520 of 2006, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, by which the claim of the plaintiffs therein seeking permanent injunction was decreed.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Mandal Revenue Officer has not taken into account the aforesaid documents produced on behalf of the petitioner and in a casual and callous manner, the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. It is also urged that similarly situated persons approached this Court and this Court by an order dated 13.09.2023 passed in W.A.No.737 of 2018 has directed the official respondents to grant assignment of land in question of the persons who are similarly situated. It is therefore contended that similar benefit be extended to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that respondent No.7 has no locus to intervene in the matter in view of the finding recorded by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.520 of 2006.

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted that the petitioner is neither a freedom fighter nor is a member of the society and at the relevant time when the plot in question is said to have been allotted to the petitioner, the governing body of the society was under supersession.

Learned counsel for respondent No.7 has submitted that respondent No.7 is a freedom fighter and has been allotted a plot measuring 300 square yards of Survey No.1008, situated at Malkaram Village, Ranga Reddy District.

We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.

Admittedly, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.09.2023 in W.A.No.737 of 2018 has granted relief to similarly situated persons. However, it is pertinent to note that in the aforesaid case, the Tahsildar vide order dated 05.10.1979 had found the ex-serviceman in that case eligible for allotment of the land. The ex-serviceman in the said case had produced the orders of allotment dated 25.11.1975 as well as several documents in support of his claim for allotment of land. In the facts of that case, the Division Bench of this Court upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, in the instant case, the name of the petitioner does not appear in the list of the 102 allottees, who were found to be eligible for allotment. However, in our considered opinion, the issue with regard to eligibility of the petitioner to claim allotment of the land has to be considered at the first instance by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The Mandal Revenue Officer has neither considered the certificate dated 16.05.1974 issued by the Secretary to the Society nor the certificate dated 04.04.1983 issued by the Taluka Cooperative Officer as well as the order dated 28.09.1994 issued by the Department of Sainik Welfare of erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh. Similarly, the impact and effect of judgment and decree dated 15.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.520 of 2006 has also not been considered. The order has been passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in a cryptic and frivolous manner. The same therefore cannot be sustained as it suffers from the vires of non-application of mind as well. Sofar as right of respondent No.7 is concerned, suffice it to say that the petitioner is claiming assignment of land under a scheme claimed for ex-serviceman. Respondent No.7 is a freedom fighter. In paragraph 32 of the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.520 of 2006 to which respondent No.7 was a party, it has been held as under:

“32. Viewed from any angle it is quite clear that the plaintiffs by virtue of Ex.A2 letter of allotment were put in possession of the suit schedule lands as long back as in the year 1974 and they appear to have developed the lands and cultivated the same and paid the land revenue and the father of PW1 was in possession and enjoyment of the said land till the year 1999 and when the defendants caused interference, it appears that the father of PW1 Keshava Reddy approached the Hon’ble High Court questioning the inaction of the defendants for the assignment of suit schedule land in his favour and the plaintiffs have been continued in possession of the suit schedule land till the date of filing of the suit and even the document filed by the plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the suit also substantiate their continuous possession in the suit schedule land and the show cause notice issued by the MRO against the 2nd plaintiff substantiate the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule lands even subsequent to the filing of the suit and the contradictory stands taken by the HUDA as well as the MRO Shamirpet with regard to the delivery of possession of the suit schedule lands in favour of the HUDA strengthens the case of the plaintiffs with regard to their possession in the suit schedule lands. On the other hand, the defendants have utterly failed to establish the resumption of the suit schedule lands as per Ex.B17 and no other scrap of paper, whatsoever, has been filed to substantiate the contention of the resumption of the suit schedule lands from the plaintiffs and no Panchanama, whatsoever, has been conducted to resume the suit schedule lands. The defendants have virtually conceded the subsistence of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court with regard to the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule lands right from 1999 till the date of filing of the suit, and the make believe efforts made by D4 to D8 to substantiate their claim in the suit schedule lands by making a false claim as if the suit schedule lands have been converted into plots and about the delivery of possession of such plots without there being any iota of evidence to substantiate such contentions and in such circumstances, the plaintiffs who appear to have been in lawful and settled possession in the suit schedule lands right from the year 1974 till the date of filing of the suit has to be protected by way of granting perpetual injunction in their favour, till such time they are evicted by following due process of law and thus, the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.”

Thus, it is evident that respondent No.7 has failed to establish his right in respect of the scheduled land. There is no material on record to hold that the finding recorded by the trial Court in the aforesaid judgment and decree has been reversed by any court of appeal.

In view of the preceding analysis, impugned order dated 16.02.2006 passed by the Joint Collector is set aside. The Joint Collector shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall thereafter by a speaking order shall deal with the claim of the petitioner for assignment of the land in question by a speaking order within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed by this Court.

Needless to state that it will be open for the petitioner to claim parity in treatment in the light of orders passed in W.A.No.737 of 2018 and in W.P.No.25672 of 2007.

It is also clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the claim of the petitioner.

With the aforementioned directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.