http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

PETITIONER:

GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

GUDEPU SAILOO & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/04/2000

BENCH:

S.S.Ahmad, D.P.Wadhwa

JUDGMENT:

S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J.

Leave granted. On 21.10.1961, each of the respondents

was allotted an area of 7.06 acres of Government land

situated in village Manchirevula, District Rangareddy,

situated at a distance of about 10 miles from the city of

Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh. This assignment was subject to

two conditions, namely, (i) that the land would be used only

for cultivation and (ii) that it would not be alienated

regarding which each one of the assignees had given a

written undertaking that they would not sell the land under

any circumstance without the prior sanction of the Tehsildar

and in case the land was sold, it would revert back to the

Government. (Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. M.N. Rao and Mr.

Sudhir Chandra object to this undertaking being read by us

on the ground that this was not filed before the High

Court). In exercise of the power conferred by Section 172

of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act,

1317 F., the Government had made THE LAONI RULES, 1950 of

which Rule 19 is quoted below:- "19. The allottee of the

land shall prepare the land for cultivation within three

years of being placed in possession and commence cultivation

of the land thereafter. The pattadar may be rejected by the

order of the Collector for breach of any of the above

conditions: Provided that he has been served with a notice

calling upon him to comply with the conditions which he has

violated and he fails to comply with it within three months

of the date of service thereof. If land has been

transferred in contravention of the conditions, the

Collector may eject the transferee." ( Emphasis supplied )

Permission to occupy the Government land is given on the

prescribed Form 'G'. One of the conditions contained in

Form 'G' is that the "grantee is not empowered to transfer

the occupancy without the sanction previously obtained from

the Collector". Under the Revised Assessment Policy,

published in Part II of Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated

31.7.1958 (pages 771-773), which again was made in exercise

of the powers conferred by Section 172 of the Andhra Pradesh

(Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F., it was provided

in Part VI thereof as under:- "VI. Terms and conditions of

assignment:- (i) the assignment of lands shall be free of

market value; (ii) lands assigned shall be heritable but

not alienable; (iii)lands assigned shall be brought under

cultivation within three years; (iv) no land tax shall be

collected for the first three years except for the extent if

any, which has already been brought under cultivation.

Water rate shall, however, be charged if the lands are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5

irrigated with Government water; and (v) cultivation should

be by the assignee or the members of his family or with

hired labour under the supervision of himself or a member of

his family." Thus, under the original Laoni Rules, 1950 as

also under the Revised Policy published in 1958, the

alienation of the assigned land was prohibited. While under

the Laoni Rules, 1950, the alienation or transfer without

the previous sanction of the Collector was prohibited, under

the Revised Policy, it was clearly provided that though the

assigned lands would be heritable, they would not be

transferred. On 14th of August, 1991, the respondents to

whom the land was assigned, executed a Power of Attorney in

favour of a builder, M.A. Baksh, giving him, inter alia,

the following powers:- "5. To negotiate, enter into

agreements for and/or let lease or licence the said property

or any portion thereof to such person(s) or body and for

such consideration and upon such terms and conditions and

for such purpose(s) as my said attorney may in his absolute

discretion deem fit. 6. To negotiate and agree to and/or

to enter into agreement, to sell/develop/lease/mortgage the

said property or to sell, convey, lease, mortgage, assign or

to otherwise transfer the said property or any portion

thereof to such person(s) or body and for such consideration

and upon such terms and conditions and for such purpose(s)

as the said attorney may in his absolute discretion deem fit

and to collect and receive the considerations thereof and to

give a valid receipts therefor. 7. To enter into

agreement(s) to develop the said property by laying roads,

drainage, water connections, Electricity connection etc.

and or erecting individual/multistoreyed,

residential/commercial buildings thereon with any person(s),

firms, company/companies or society/societies upon such

terms and conditions as my said attorney may in his absolute

discretion deem fit." Acting upon the Power of Attorney,

M.A. Baksh applied to the Mandal Revenue Officer and

obtained a Memo dated 23.9.1992 from him that the sale of

land was not hit by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh

Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. In the

meantime, the Inspector-General of Police, Special Security

Force, Andhra Pradesh, sent a requisition on 12.11.1993 to

the Government for acquisition of the land situated in

Manchirevula Village, Rejendranagar Mandal for setting up of

operational Headquarters with residential accommodation for

the Police Academy. It was, at this stage, that the

validity of the assignments made in favour of the

respondents in 1966 was examined and on certain

irregularities having been noticed in making those

assignments, it was decided to take action under Section

166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue

Act, 1317 Fasli and, therefore, a notice, requiring them to

show cause why the assignment of land made in their favour

in 1961 be not cancelled, was issued to the respondents on

28.3.1994 by the District Revenue Officer. It was on

receipt of the show cause notice that the respondents filed

Writ Petition No. 9106 of 1994 in the Andhra Pradesh High

Court challenging the validity of the notice. This Writ

Petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on

3.5.1994 by the following order:- "This writ petition is

filed for a writ of certiorary by calling for the records

relating to the impugned order dt. 28.3.1994 of the second

respondent and quash the same, by the impugned notice dated

28.3.1994 the Distt. Collector Ranga Reddy has issued a

show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the Patta

granted earlier should not be cancelled in view of certain

alleged contraventions. However, it is the case of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5

petitioner that he has not submitted his explanation,

instead furnished in this court. This writ petition is

premature as it is filed against the show cause notice.

However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, I direct the petitioner to submit his explanation

within a period of one week from today and the same shall be

considered by the second respondent. Pending consideration

of his explanation, the petitioner shall not be

dispossessed. Subject to above the writ petition is

disposed of at the stage of admission." It may be stated

that the second respondent in the Writ Petition to whom a

direction was issued to consider the explanation which was

to be submitted by the respondents was the District

Collector, Rangareddy District. It was he who had issued

the show cause notice dated 28.3.1994. Pursuant to the

judgment passed by the High Court, the respondents submitted

their explanations to the show cause notice which was

considered by the District Revenue Officer and he, by his

order dated 15.9.1994, held that there was no irregularity

in the assignment of lands to the respondents. It was

further held by him that the respondents were in possession

over the assigned lands in pursuance of the Certificate

granted to them in Form `G' issued on 21.10.1961 and,

therefore, the assignment was not affected by the subsequent

G.O.Ms. No.1122, dated 29.6.1961 by which the assignment of

lands falling within 10 miles of Hyderabad City was banned.

This order was examined by the Collector who was of the

opinion that the District Revenue Officer had not examined

certain vital aspects of the matter and consequently by his

order dated 3rd of January, 1995, he suspended the operation

of the order dated 15.9.1994, passed by the District Revenue

Officer. This order was challenged by the respondents in

Writ Petition No.484 of 1995. In the meantime, the

Collector wrote to the Government on 31st of July, 1995 to

ratify the action indicated by him in his order dated 3rd of

January, 1995. By order dated 24th of January, 1996, the

Government ratified the Collector's order dated 3rd of

January, 1995 and directed him to proceed with the enquiry

and pass final order. This order of the Government was

challenged by the respondents in Writ Petition No.7221/96.

By a common judgment dated 1st of September, 1997, a learned

Single Judge of the High Court allowed both the Writ

Petitions and quashed the order of the Government dated 24th

of January, 1996. It may be stated that in the

counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the Government of

Andhra Pradesh (appellants), it was, inter alia, stated that

the respondents had alienated the lands in favour of a third

person. They had converted the agricultural lands into non-

agricultural lands and had also appointed a General Power of

Attorney in favour of a developer, for developing and sale

of the plots, who converted the lands into residential plots

in the name and style of "Bakshi Estates". The State of

Andhra Pradesh, thereafter, filed two appeals before the

Division Bench but the Division Bench took up only one of

the two appeals, namely, Writ Appeal No.1487/98 and by

judgment dated 14th of September, 1998, it dismissed the

said appeal and maintained the order of the Single Judge

that the assignment of lands, made in favour of the

respondents thirty years ago, could not be touched. We may

observe that when two writ appeals were filed against the

common judgment and there were two distinct questions

involved in the appeal, both the appeals should have been

heard together. However, having regard to the facts of the

present case, we are of the view that since the High Court

in the first Writ Petition, namely, Writ Petition No.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5

9106/94, which was filed by the respondents against the show

cause notice dated 28.3.1994 for cancellation of the

assignment made in their favour, had itself directed the

respondents to submit their explanation to the show cause

notice, and had directed the Collector, Rangareddy District,

who was arrayed as second respondent in that Writ Petition,

to consider and dispose of the explanation, there was no

occasion to challenge the action initiated by the Collector

at the interlocutory stage. The mandamus which was issued

in Writ Petition No.9106/94 consisted of a direction to the

respondents to submit their explanation to the show cause

notice issued to them for cancellation of the assignment of

lands made in their favour and a direction to the Collector,

Rangareddy District, to consider and dispose of that

explanation. The explanation submitted by the respondents

was, however, considered by the District Revenue Officer who

was of the view that the assignment of lands, made in favour

of the respondents, could not be cancelled and consequently

dropped the proceedings. It was, at this stage, that the

Collector intervened in the matter vide order dated 3rd of

January, 1995 and suspended the operation of the order

passed by the District Revenue Officer and proceeded himself

to enquire into the matter by writing to the Government on

31st of July, 1995, to ratify his action. As pointed out

earlier, the Government, by its order dated 24th of January,

1996, ratified the action of the Collector. It is not

disputed that on account of the proceedings, initiated by

the respondents in the High Court, the Collector could not

complete the proceedings. There has, thus, been a

non-compliance of the mandamus issued by the High Court in

respondents' own Writ Petition No.9106/94. The High Court

in the impugned judgment has observed as under:- "We do not

find any infirmity in the reasoning of the learned Single

Judge. In any event, the District Revenue Officer was

vested with the power under Section 166-B and in exercise of

such a power he passed an order recording therein that it

will neither be fair nor proper to reopen the issue of

assignment which took place three decades back by invoking

the provisions of Section 166-B of the A.P.(T.A.) Land

Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. We also record our concurrence

with the observations of the learned Single Judge and record

that no exception can be taken to the order of the District

Revenue Officer and the order under appeal cannot be said to

be suffering from any infirmity. There is no merit in the

appeal. As such, this appeal fails and is dismissed. No

order as to costs." We cannot subscribe to the view

expressed by the High Court in so far as the order passed by

the District Revenue Officer is concerned. Since a mandamus

was issued to the Collector, Rangareddy District, to hear

and dispose of the explanation, which was required to be

submitted by the respondents in reply to the show cause

notice issued to them, the District Revenue Officer had no

jurisdiction to consider the matter in violation of the

direction of the High Court. As a matter of fact, the

explanation to the show cause notice had to be submitted

before the Collector and the Collector alone had to consider

and take a final decision in the matter. The action

initiated by the Collector and the ratification of his order

by the State Government are matters which should have been

allowed to take final shape instead of being challenged at

the interlocutory stage by the respondents. That being so,

there is no necessity of going into the merits of the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with

regard to the provisions of Section 166-B and 166-C of the

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5

Fasli. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal finally with

the direction to the Collector to complete the proceedings,

initiated by him by his order dated 3rd of January, 1995 as

ratified by the Government by its order dated 24th of

January, 1995, at an early date in accordance with law.

There shall be no order as to costs.