The one and the only argument relied upon and on which the Respondents revolved around in their entire Writ Appeal is that the Party-in-Person did not question the resumption Order [Progs.No.C/447/2002 dt.29.01.2007] and as such it has been declared as final and therefore the Writ Petition is not maintainable according to them.
The Party-in-Person came to know about resumption proceedings from the W.A.128 / 2022 only and he has absolutely no knowledge about it until then as no notice has been issued and served to him before impugned resumption order was passed and no proof to this effect was produced by the Respondents. Therefore, the procedure to be observed in this regard which is mandatory under Section 4 of the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers Act) 1977 inviting for claims has been thrown to the winds by the Respondent Authorities. It is important to know that the name of the Party-in-Person continued to be shown even now in the Stamps & Registration of Telangana State Govt. of Survey No.44/1, Munaganoor Village, Abdullahpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District at S.No.176 as the rightful owner of Plot No.95. The resumption made Vide Order 29.01.2007 is not legally valid 23 years after registration of the Plot on 20.12.1984 of the Petitioner-in-Person. It is very unfortunate that this most crucial and vital issue has been ignored by the Div. Bench and Writ Appeal has been allowed by it.
It is emphatically stated that no notice has been received by the Party-in-Person on the resumption of land. If at all a notice has been issued, it ought to have been issued in Form II of Rule 3 which is mandatory soon after registration of site or within a reasonable time. In the instant case, the Resumption Order has been issued after an inexcusable delay of 23 years after the registration of plot of the Party-in-Person which is a mockery of justice and won’t stand for legal scrutiny as per the verdict of H.C. (Ref:-CHAVALLI ANILAJA Vs COLLECTOR, RR DIST. (2017 (3) ALD 491) & DASARI NARAYANA RAO Vs DY. COLLECTOR & MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, SERILINGAMPALLI (2010(4) ALT 655.
The Division Bench headed by the Hon. CJ failed to take note of the decisive factors contained in the judgment of the Single Judge into consideration and hastily jumped into erroneous conclusion that resulted in grave injustice to the Party-in-Person. The same have been reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
Para No.18 of judgment delivered by the Single Judge in W.P.No.30687 / 2010 reads as under:-
“Registrations of these plots were taken place in the year 1984 and kept changing hands in some cases. Settled things can’t be unsettled at this length of time where the petitioners have acquired possessory rights in respect of the plots purchased by them under registered sale deeds. Whether the assignment of land to the assignees contained a non-alienation clause or not could not be ascertained as the original assignment patta has not been produced for perusal. Further, the question whether assignment patta contains non-alienation is also not clear. Though, the resumption proceedings of the land by the Government has become final, but those proceedings are not binding on the petitioners as they being registered owners of the plots in Sy.No.44/1 much prior to the resumption proceedings and stated have been in possession of the respective plots are entitled for receipt of notice in Form II of Rule 3 of the Rules which being a statutory requirement, the respondents failed to comply.”
