AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
It is the case of the petitioners that one Mr. Vadde Narayana, who is the father of petitioner Nos.1 to 4, was declared as highest bidder of land situated in Sy.Nos.36 and 38 admeasuring Acs.6.23 gts. and Acs.5.02 gts. of Himayath Sagar Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on 10th Dai 1352 Fasli (1942) and 28th Dai 1353 Fasli vide file No.69/11 of 1352 Fasli, i.e. in the second auction that was conducted on 28th Dai 1353 Fasli. The said Mr. Vadde Narayana was declared as successful bidder for an amount of Rs.3300/- and the said amount was paid by the said Mr. Vadde Narayana and possession of the said land was delivered to him for cultivation. However, the Ownership Certificate could not be issued due to confusion as to which department has to issue the final proceedings. It is the further case of the petitioners that, in the meanwhile, the police action was taken against the Hyderabad State and the Hyderabad State was merged into the Union of India and thereafter, several extents of land were regularized by granting Ownership Rights on payment of 7½ times of land revenue and the bid amount of Rs.3300/- paid by the petitioners was much higher than 7½ times of land revenue and as such, the said Mr. Vadde Narayana was entitled for regularization of the subject land. However the said regularization was not affected. But, the said Mr. Vadde Narayana continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the subject land during his life time and thereafter, the petitioners herein claim to have come into possession of the subject land and continued to be in possession of the same till date by conducting active agricultural operations. It is the further case of the petitioners that the claim of late Mr. Vadde Narayana for grant of Ownership Rights was actively considered by the respondent-authorities and proposals were submitted to the Government for grant of Ownership Rights to the said Mr. Vadde Narayana.
As no final decision was taken, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.335 of 1988, wherein this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of late Mr. Vadde Narayana for assignment of the subject land by an order, dated 13.01.1988. However, thereafter a Memo bearing No.D1/486/92, dated 06.10.1997, was issued stating that the request of the petitioner therein cannot be considered. Thereafter, the petitioners once again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.24724 of 1998 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court, by an order, dated 09.04.2007, directing respondent No.3 herein to consider the case of the petitioners for assignment of the subject land. Thereafter, respondent No.3, purportedly considering the request of the said Mr. Vadde Narayana, issued the impugned memo bearing No.E1/6916/2002, dated 14.06.2007, rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the subject land was earmarked for public purpose. Aggrieved by the said Memo, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, who is also holding the full additional charge of the post of respondent No.4, filed a counter affidavit admitting the fact of accepting the bid of Mr. Vadde Narayana in respect of land in Sy.No.38 for an extent of Acs.5.02 gts. However, stated that there is nothing to show that the said Mr. Vadde Narayana deposited the auction amount. It is further stated that in the year 1356 Fasli, the Nizam Government Secretariat, issued a letter to Bagath Administration i.e. to the Collector for consideration to grant Occupation Patta Rights on payment of amount of rupees 7½ times of land revenue of the respective survey numbers, but no record is available to show, whether any action was taken in that direction. It is further stated that on merger of the Nizam State in the Union of India in the year 1948, there was Civil Administrator for the Hyderbad State and a list of persons in occupation over the lands was prepared by the Civil Administration and in the said list, among those survey numbers, the name of Mr. Vadde Narayana was found. However, it is stated that there is nothing to show that the Occupation Rights were granted to the occupier of the land including the land in Sy.Nos.36 and 38 of Himayath Sagar Village. It is also stated that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1122, dated 29.06.1961, no vacant land in Hyderabad City or within a belt of ten (10) miles around the City should be assigned or otherwise disposed of. It is further stated that during the years 1978-1980, the Commissioner of Land Revenue recommended the case of Mr. Vadde Narayana for consideration to the Government, but no orders are issued by the Government so far. Thus, it is contended that the impugned memo was rightly issued by respondent No.3.
Heard Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Madhusudan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Harender Pershad, learned Special Counsel for the respondents.
From the perusal of the material on record, especially a copy of Auction Patti of the auction conducted on 28th Dai 1353 Fasli, in file No.69/11 of 1352 Fasli, shows that the auction in respect of land in Sy.No.38 was confirmed in favour of Mr. Vadde Narayana and the required charges were remitted by the said Mr. Vadde Narayana on 28th Bahman, 54 Fasli. It is also evident from the material on record that on the request made by the said Mr. Vadde Narayana for grant of patta in respect of subject lands, respondent No.4, after having conducted a detailed enquiry, submitted a report on 19.04.1978, wherein it is stated as under:-
“Sy.Nos.36 and 38 are Kharij-Khata lands as per pahani 1951 A.D. and Sri Wadde Narayan has been cultivating the lands even before 1356F by paying land revenue to the Government. He has deepened the well and developed the lands by incurring huge expenditure. He has fixed a motor and levelled the land about 5 Acres for wet cultivation.
As per the Government Order No.43/Rev. dt.13.02.1956, copy is received from Collector No.K1/1044/1969 dt.28.01.1969 the lands should have been assigned in the name of the applicant, who was the temporary cultivator in respect of the lands mentioned above, but in fact no assignment was done.
Similar to the case of the petitioner one Smt. Chittaramma r/o Himayath Sagar Village was assigned lands by the Board of Revenue in his ref.BB1/445/71 dt.18.12.1972 on the payment of upset price of 7½ times of the land revenue, copy of which is enclosed herewith. The petitioners claim of patta is covered by the Govt. General Order dt.17th Dai, 1356F.
The petitioner belongs to Waddari Community and eligible for patta on the analogy of Smt. Chittaramma’s case. The Sy.Nos. are Kharij-Khata as per record and they are not porampoke.
In the circumstances, I request to recommend the case for assignment of land measuring 11 Acres 25 guntas out of Sy.Nos.36 and 38 of Himayath Sagar Village on payment of 7½ times of land revenue.”
Thereupon, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West Division, having considered the report submitted by respondent No.4, submitted proposals to respondent No.3 herein for assignment of the subject land in favour of late Mr.Vadde Narayana. The relevant portion of the said proposals reads under:-
“In view of the circumstances reported by the Tahsildar that Sri Wadde Narayana is cultivating the above lands even before 1356F by paying land revenue and in fact he has not been assigned the land in the light of the Revenue Secretary Lr.No.43/Pesh dated 17th Dai 1356F. Further, it is also evident from the Boards Reference B.B.I/445/71 dt.18.12.77 in a similar case that not applying for the patta immediately after 1356F will not deprive rights and contemplated the order 17th Dai 1356f. I recommend the proposals submitted by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad, West, for assignment of land on payment of upset price of 7½ times land revenue, to an extent of 11.25 gts. out of Sy.os.36 and 38 in favour of Sri Wadde Narayana who belongs to ‘Waddari’ Community.”
Thereupon, respondent No.3 herein submitted a report to respondent No.2 on 23.12.1978 for assignment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner therein. It is the specific contention of Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, that respondent No.3 herein, having taken note of the overall facts and circumstances and basing upon the record available before him, made recommendation for grant of assignment of the subject land in favour of late Mr. Vadde Narayana, but the same was not considered and therefore, the said Mr. Vadde Narayana approached this Court seeking consideration of his case for grant of assignment/Ownership Rights. But, the same was not considered in proper perspective and impugned memo was issued without application of mind and oblivious of the entire record that is available before respondent No.3. He also contended that this Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No.24724 of 1998, specifically directed respondent No.3 herein to consider the claim of the petitioners. But, respondent No.3, instead of considering the case of the petitioners, abdicated his powers in favour of the Joint Collector concerned, thereby the order passed by this Court is not strictly complied with by respondent No.3. He further contended that though it appears that the petitioners are seeking assignment of the Government land, but the claim of the Mr. Vadde Narayana is in fact not for assignment but by virtue of his right flowing from the auction that was conducted by the erstwhile Nizam State and the amount that was paid by him at the relevant point of time and by virtue of various Government Orders from time to time. Thus, he contended that it is not open for the respondents to claim as though the petitioners are seeking assignment of the Government land, as the claim of the petitioners is basing upon the success in the auction and the continued possession over the subject property since the year 1942.
A perusal of the impugned memo, dated 14.06.2007, shows that the subject lands were recorded as Government lands and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1122, dated 29.06.1961, the land within a belt of ten (10) miles around the city of Hyderabad should not be assigned or otherwise disposed of and further reliance is also placed on G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 28.02.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.02.2005, to say that the land situated in prime locations of Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy Districts shall be used only for Government Organizations or for public purposes or for Institutional use. From the perusal of the impugned memo, it appears that, the case of the petitioners was considered as though they are seeking assignment of Government land in the capacity of a landless poor or otherwise. The context in which the petitioners are making a claim for assignment/grant of Ownership Rights over the subject land was not at all considered in the impugned memo. The entire material and correspondence that went on right from 1975 onwards was totally ignored, while passing the impugned memo and not even a reference was made to the background facts basing upon which the petitioners herein are making a claim for grant of Ownership Rights in their favour.
Sri Harender Pershad, learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondents, made submissions at length by placing reliance on various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, having been confronted with a situation in view of non-consideration of the claim of the petitioners in the impugned memo by taking the factual background into consideration and the manner in which the impugned memo was issued in total ignorance of the entire correspondence that took place, fairly submitted that the matter may be remanded back to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration of the matter by duly taking into consideration the entire material.
In the light of the above and the submissions made by Sri Harender Pershad, learned Special Counsel and in the light of the observations already made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned memo was appears to have been issued just to show that the respondents have complied with the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.24724 of 1998, dated 09.04.2007, but not with a view to consider the claim of the petitioners in proper perspective and the same is wholly unsustainable under law.
Accordingly, the impugned memo, dated 14.06.2007, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.3 to consider the claim of the petitioners by duly taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the observations made hereinabove and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The petitioners are granted liberty to submit representation bringing to the notice of respondent No.3 about the basis of their claim and to submit the relevant material within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and respondent No.3, while considering the claim of the petitioners, shall afford them a reasonable opportunity and then pass orders, as directed hereinabove.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs.