AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In PTCL writ petitions, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are ordinarily challenged before this Court. The Court has frequently observed discrepancies in the names of the original grantees, the dates of grant and alienation, and the survey numbers mentioned in the impugned orders. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and to avoid unnecessary repetition, the parties are referred to as the “original grantee”, and the relevant years of grant and alienation are used instead of reproducing the names, dates, and survey numbers in each case.
The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. These orders are challenged in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition.
Counsel for the respective parties advanced several contentions.
AGA submits that an appropriate orders may be passed.
Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 vehemently contended that there was a violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act and justified the action taken by the family of the grantee in seeking resumption proceedings. Urging additional grounds, he submits that the petition lacks merit and the same may be dismissed.
The Court heard the arguments and carefully perused the papers.
This issue is limited to the resumption proceedings. The land in question was granted in 1968– 69, and the first alienation took place in 2005. A perusal of the sale deeds reveals that the legal heirs of the original grantees sold the property to Sri.Sreenivasa on 01.04.2005. Thereafter, Sri.Sreenivasa, along with the family of the grantee, sold the property to Sri.S.Bupathi Reddy and Smt.Kavitha Reddy on 04.02.2008.
Subsequently, Sri.Bupathi Reddy and Smt.Kavitha Reddy sold the property in favor of the petitioner on 24.09.2009.
In 2006, the resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner approved the petition and ordered the land to be resumed. Dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the original order.
Undoubtedly, the PTCL Act was enacted to protect members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from exploitation by prohibiting alienation of granted lands without prior permission. The remedy of resumption is available to protect the grantee against unauthorized transfers. However, when the grantee or his heirs voluntarily execute a registered sale deed, they cannot later invoke the Act to nullify their own transaction. Thus, the right to challenge it is limited. The Act’s protective umbrella is intended to shield the grantee from exploitation by others, not to allow the grantee to repudiate his own act. Courts therefore apply estoppel against the grantee.
Furthermore, the family members of the grantee themselves have sold the property and have also initiated the resumption proceedings. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Seethamma case, they could not have instituted proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject land, cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be set aside.
The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-G, and the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-H are quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the authority concerned is hereby directed to mutate/restore the petitioner's name in the subject land in the revenue records.
Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed.
On disposal of the Writ Petition, any interim order stands discharged, and any pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.