Judgment:
ORDER
1. The petitioners, who are 10 in number, filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 1st respondent herein, made on 22-1-1997 in Case No.D5/5347/94.
2. The petitioners are residents of Petbasheerbad village, Quthbullahpur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioners 6, 7 and 10 are the original assignees and petitioners 1 to 5, 8 and 9 are the legal heirs of some other original assignees. Their case is that they, along with another 35 persons of their village who are landless poor persons, were assigned agricultural land to the extent of Ac.3.23 guntas each in Survey No.25/1 of Petbasheerbad village, Quthbullapur Mandal, in the year 1955 by the then Tahsildar, Medchal taluk and the names of the assignees were shown as pattadars and possessors in the Pahani till the year 1983-84. Thereafter their names were deleted and the names of some others people were entered in the revenue records. Having realised the said fact, the petitioners filed an application before the District Collector, Rangareddy District, on 15-3-1994 requesting him to take action under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act') and to restore the land to them. When there was no response to that request, he petitioners filed Writ Petition No.11113 of 1994. It appears that the said writ petition was disposed of on 26-3-1994 directing the Joint Collector, 1st respondent herein, to enquire into the matter. Pursuant to the said direction, the 1st respondent conducted an enquiry, gave full opportunity to the petitioners and respondents 6 to 11 herein, who were represented by theiradvocates, and on elaborate consideration of all the aspects found that the land admeasuring Ac.242.27 guntas in Survey No.25 of Petbasheerbad village was classified as 'kancha'. Out of which, an extent of Ac.160.35 guntas was assigned to 45 individuals at Ac.3.23 guntas each by the then Tahsildar, Medchal taluk in pursuance of the Government Order Nos.9384 and 9385 dated 1-12-1954, pattas were also granted to them and necessary entries were made in the revenue records in the year 1960. Subsequently, Sri Burre Mallaiah and 24 others filed a petition before the Collector, Hyderabad District, on 28-10-1965 seeking permission to sell the land assigned to them in Survey No.25/1 of Petbasheerabad village, Medchal taluk in favour of Co-operative Industrial Estate, Hyderabad (for short 'the Estate'). The Collector granted permission under Section 58-A of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act to the assignees to sell the assigned land in favour of the estate. Thereafter, the assignees sold the assigned land to the estate under a registered document dated 11-12-1965. Out of the land purchased by the Estate, an extent of about Ac.38.00 guntas was allotted by the Estate to respondents 6 to 11 herein by means of registered allotment deeds dated 3-8-1979 and 6-8-1979. Thereafter necessary entries were made in Jamabandi during the year 1984. Having thus found the correct facts relating to the case, the 1st respondent rejected the petitioners' request holding thus:-
'The petitioners as far back as in the year 1965 obtained permission from the Collector to sell the suit lands and they have already sold the said land. Now, after a gap of twenty nine (29) years the petitioners are seeking restoration of possession of the lands which were already sold duly following the procedure. The petitioners are not entitled to any claim over the suit lands as they had already relinquished their rights long backby following due procedure. They are, therefore, not entitled to raise this issue at this distant point of time and create avoidable and fruitless litigation. The claim of the petitioner is accordingly rejected'.
3. Challenging the aforementioned order, Counsel for the petitioners, Sri U.S.R. Murthy, submits that:(a) the 1st respondent has committed a grave error in rejecting the request of the petitioners, (b) the 1st respondent ought to have seen that the permission granted by the Collector, Hyderabad district, in 1965 itself is illegal as alienation of the assigned land is prohibited under the Act and the Act is retrospective in operation as declared by a Full Bench of this Court in Dharma Reddy v. Sub-collector, Bodhan, 1987 (1) ALT 124 (FB); and (c) therefore, the 1st respondent ought to have restored the land to the petitioners under Section 4 of the Act irrespective of the delay. In support of his last contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of a leaned single Judge of this Court in Majjari Pullanna v. Sub-collector, Nandyal, 1987 (2) ALT 253.
4. Disputing the aforesaid contentions, the learned Counsel for respondents 6 to 11, Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, contended that: (a) the land said to have been assigned to the petitioners and/or their vendors, as the case may be, is not a land within the meaning of the definition of 'assigned land' under Section 2(1) of the Act; (b) the petitioners have not pleaded either before the Collector or in the writ petition that the original assignment of the land was subject to the condition of non-alienation; and (c) therefore, the 1st respondent is justified in rejecting the petitioners' request on the ground of delay.
5. The entire argument of the petitioners' Counsel proceeded on the assumption that the land assigned to thepetitioners and/or their fathers, as the case may be, is subject to the condition of non-alienation, but he, inspite of persistent questioning by this Court, could not and did not produce the original assignment orders, nor could he show any other documentary proof to show that the assignment was subject to the condition of non-alienation. In fact, as rightly pointed by Sri C. V, Mohan Reddy, the petitioners did not mention either in the application filed by them before the Collector or in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition that the original assignment was subject to such a condition. In the absence of such a condition, the land cannot be considered as an assigned land within the definition of Section 2(1) of the Act, which reads as under:-
'Section 2(1). 'Assigned land' means land assigned by the Government to the landless poor persons under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non-alienation and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceiling; and the word 'assigned' shall be construed accordingly.'
From the above it is clear that unless the assignment is subject to the condition of non-alienation, the land that is assigned cannot be treated as an 'assigned land' for the purpose of the Act.
6. A careful reading of the Act clearly shows that the prohibition under Section 3 of the Act comes into operation only in cases where the land is assigned subject to condition of non-alienation. When once the petitioners could not prove that the land is 'assigned land' within the meaning of the definition of the Act, there is no question of the 1st respondent restoring the land under Section 4 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot lend any support. Further, there is nothingin the decision of this Court in Majjari Pullanna 's case (supra) to the effect that the District Collector, while exercising his powers under Section 4 of the Act is bound to restore the assigned land to the original owner even though he lost possession of the same several decades back. In this case, undisputedly the petitioners or their ancestors, as the case may be, lost possession of the lands way back in December, 1965. On expiry of 12 years limitation period by December, 1977, their right to that property has extinguished according to Section 27 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Long thereafter, they approached the Collector in March, 1995. Therefore, the order of the 1st respondent rejecting their claim on the ground of delay cannot be faulted.
7. Apart from the above noted findings, the conduct of the petitioners, in my considered view, clearly disentitles them from claiming the relief sought for. Undisputedly petitioners 6, 7 and 10 (original assignees) and the fathers of petitioners 1 to 5, 8 and 9 (legal representatives of some of the original assignees) have applied to the Collector, Hyderabad, on 28-10-1965 seeking permission to sell the lands assigned to them. Acting upon that request, the Collector, Hyderabad, granted permission on 10-12-1965. Pursuant to that permission, the petitioners actually sold the land to the estate under a registered deed dated 11-12-1965. The petitioners thereafter kept quiet for nearly 29 years and approached the Collector only on 15-3-1994 suppressing the said facts. This conduct of the petitioners, coupled with the inordinate delay of 29 years, disentitles them from invoking the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, I see no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.