# CASE DETAILS YADAIAH AND ANR v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** 2023 INSC 664
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-08-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4835 of 2023
- **Bench:** Surya Kant, J. K. Maheshwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/case-details-yadaiah-and-anr-v-state-of-telangana-and-others-36579
- **Pages:** 59

## Headnote

Issue for consideration: In the instant appeal, the resumption order
concerning the assignment of non-occupied land in the 1960s to landless
scheduled caste/scheduled tribe persons for the purpose of cultivation which
was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court is challenged; as also
pertains to the issues of law concerning res judicata, nature of assignment
and violation of conditions of assignment.
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act,
1977 - Assignment/Alienation of government land - Assignment
of non-occupied land to landless scheduled caste/scheduled tribe
persons - Assignees alienated the land to one through General Power
of Attorney, who in turn sold the land to subsequent purchasers -
Resumption order, resuming the subject land in favour of the State
since assignees sold the land in contravention of the conditions of
the assignment - High Court set aside resumption order as well the
fi rst SCN issued to assignees by the Collector proposing to cancel
the assignment of land - Issuance of second SCN that the assigned
land could not be sold as per the 1977 Act, thus, the land be resumed
into government possession - Second SCN culminated into another
resumption order - Single Judge of the High Court held that the
proceedings emanating from the Second SCN barred by the principle
of res judicata and abuse of process of law and that the assignments
were governed by the Laoni Rules of 1950 instead by the GOM 1122
- However, the Division Bench allowed in favour of State upholding
the second resumption order - Correctness:
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
602
Held: Proceedings emanating out of the Second SCN were valid -
Subject Land was non-alienable and hence was subject to the provisions
of the 1977 Act - Appellants-assignees had transferred the subject land in
contravention to the provisions of 1977 Act and thus, the resultant resumption
order is valid - Appellants not entitled to any compensation on account of
the requisition of the assigned land - Furthermore, an important security
agency currently occupies the subject land, thus, invocation of powers u/
Art. 142 and certain directions issued - Subject land in its entirety declared
to have vested in the State Government - Constitution of India - Art. 142
- Telengana Land Revenue Act of 1317 - ss. 54, 58, 58A and 166B. [Paras
40-42,
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act,
1977 - Assignment of government land - Applicability of doctrine res
judicata or constructive res judicata - Proceedings emanating out of the
Second SCN, if barred by the doctrine of res judicata or constructive res
judicata as said issues already decided by the prior judgment of High
Court emanating from the First SCN - Plea that the substratum of both
the fi rst Show cause notice (SCN) and second SCN essentially identical:
Held: Only such determinations which are fundamental would result in
the application of the doctrine of res judicata - Only those fi ndings, without
which the Court cannot adjudicate a dispute and also form the vital cog
in the reasoning of a defi nite conclusion on an issue on merits, constitute
res judicata between the same set of parties in subsequent proceedings -
However, in the process of arriving at a fi nal conclusion, if the Court makes
any incidental, supplemental or non-essential observations which are not
foundational to the fi nal determination, the same would not tie down the
hands of courts in future - On a plain reading of the High Court's order in
conjugation with the application of the test formulated for distinguishing
between a fundamental or collateral determination, it is found that the
observation in respect of General Power of Attorney in the said order was
indeed a mere collateral fi nding - Doctrine of constructive res judicata will
also not be applicable as the issues raised in the Second SCN were never
adjudicated upon in the fi rst place - Thus, the proceedings emanating out
of the Second SCN are not ba

## Text

_Characters 0–39,937 of 125,236. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39937 for what follows._

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 601 : 2023 INSC 664
601
CASE DETAILS
YADAIAH AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4835 of 2023)
AUGUST 01, 2023
[SURYA KANT AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: In the instant appeal, the resumption order
concerning the assignment of non-occupied land in the 1960s to landless
scheduled caste/scheduled tribe persons for the purpose of cultivation which
was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court is challenged; as also
pertains to the issues of law concerning res judicata, nature of assignment
and violation of conditions of assignment.
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act,
1977 - Assignment/Alienation of government land - Assignment
of non-occupied land to landless scheduled caste/scheduled tribe
persons - Assignees alienated the land to one through General Power
of Attorney, who in turn sold the land to subsequent purchasers -
Resumption order, resuming the subject land in favour of the State
since assignees sold the land in contravention of the conditions of
the assignment - High Court set aside resumption order as well the
fi rst SCN issued to assignees by the Collector proposing to cancel
the assignment of land - Issuance of second SCN that the assigned
land could not be sold as per the 1977 Act, thus, the land be resumed
into government possession - Second SCN culminated into another
resumption order - Single Judge of the High Court held that the
proceedings emanating from the Second SCN barred by the principle
of res judicata and abuse of process of law and that the assignments
were governed by the Laoni Rules of 1950 instead by the GOM 1122
- However, the Division Bench allowed in favour of State upholding
the second resumption order - Correctness:
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
602
Held: Proceedings emanating out of the Second SCN were valid -
Subject Land was non-alienable and hence was subject to the provisions
of the 1977 Act - Appellants-assignees had transferred the subject land in
contravention to the provisions of 1977 Act and thus, the resultant resumption
order is valid - Appellants not entitled to any compensation on account of
the requisition of the assigned land - Furthermore, an important security
agency currently occupies the subject land, thus, invocation of powers u/
Art. 142 and certain directions issued - Subject land in its entirety declared
to have vested in the State Government - Constitution of India - Art. 142
- Telengana Land Revenue Act of 1317 - ss. 54, 58, 58A and 166B. [Paras
40-42,
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act,
1977 - Assignment of government land - Applicability of doctrine res
judicata or constructive res judicata - Proceedings emanating out of the
Second SCN, if barred by the doctrine of res judicata or constructive res
judicata as said issues already decided by the prior judgment of High
Court emanating from the First SCN - Plea that the substratum of both
the fi rst Show cause notice (SCN) and second SCN essentially identical:
Held: Only such determinations which are fundamental would result in
the application of the doctrine of res judicata - Only those fi ndings, without
which the Court cannot adjudicate a dispute and also form the vital cog
in the reasoning of a defi nite conclusion on an issue on merits, constitute
res judicata between the same set of parties in subsequent proceedings -
However, in the process of arriving at a fi nal conclusion, if the Court makes
any incidental, supplemental or non-essential observations which are not
foundational to the fi nal determination, the same would not tie down the
hands of courts in future - On a plain reading of the High Court's order in
conjugation with the application of the test formulated for distinguishing
between a fundamental or collateral determination, it is found that the
observation in respect of General Power of Attorney in the said order was
indeed a mere collateral fi nding - Doctrine of constructive res judicata will
also not be applicable as the issues raised in the Second SCN were never
adjudicated upon in the fi rst place - Thus, the proceedings emanating out
of the Second SCN are not barred by the doctrine of res judicata or the
extended doctrine of constructive res judicata - Doctrines/Principles -
603
Telengana Land Revenue Act of 1317 - ss. 54, 58, 58A and 166B. [Paras
40-42, 43, 45, 47 and 48]
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977
- ss. 2 and 3 - Prohibition of transfer of assigned land - Assignment
of the land to landless scheduled caste/ scheduled tribe persons in the
year 1961 and in the year 1991 assignees alienating the land through
the General Power of attorney, and thereafter, a resumption order
passed - Application of the 1977 Act:
Held: Provisions of the 1977 Act attracted to regulate the said land -
Subject land was non-alienable and comes under the defi nition of 'assigned
land' as provided u/s 2(1) - General Power of Attorney executed in favour
of the attorney holder by the assignees constitutes a 'transfer' under the
1977 Act which was intended to save the landless poor persons from the
clutches of the rich and the resourceful, who deprived them of the precious
title assigned to them by the Government for their occupation and the
source of livelihood - Thus, the appellants transferred the subject land in
contravention to the provisions of 1977 Act and thus, resulted in violation
of s.3 and the resultant resumption order is valid - Telengana Land Revenue
Act of 1317 - ss. 54, 58, 58A and 166B. [Paras 60, 64, 65 and 68-70]
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977
- Assignment of government land to assignees - Suo motu revisionary
powers - Exercise of, while issuing the Second Show cause notice -
Correctness:
Held: Second SCN pertains to alleged violation of assignment
conditions by transferring the ownership rights through sale deeds executed
in the year 1992 - However, the period till 2006 could not be counted
because the parties were engaged in litigation pursuant to the First SCN and
it was only after the liberty was accorded by the High Court in its order in
2006 that the Second SCN could be issued - Thus, the exercise of suo motu
revisionary power while issuing the Second SCN not vitiated on account of
inordinate delay - Telengana Land Revenue Act of 1317 - ss. 54, 58, 58A
and 166B. [Para 50]
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act,
1977 - Assignment of government land to assignees - Applicability of
YADAIAH AND ANR. v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND
OTHERS
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
604
law governing the assignment of the land and if it contained any bar
in respect of alienation:
Held: Actual assignment took place only on the issuance of temporary
pattas on 21.10.1961 - 1958 Circular as well as GOM 1122 being in force
in the year 1961, are clearly applicable to the Subject Land - There was a
conditional bar on alienation of the Subject Land as provided in the 1958
Circular and the GOM 1122 - Thus, the subject land was governed by
the provision of the 1958 circular which included the condition of nonalienability - Telengana Land Revenue Act of 1317 - ss. 54, 58, 58A and
166B. [Paras 51-55, 57-59]
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977
- Resumption of land - Entitlement to compensation - Assignment of
non-occupied land to landless scheduled caste/ scheduled tribe persons -
Assignees alienated the land to one through General Power of Attorney,
who inturn sold the land to subsequent purchasers - Resumption order,
resuming the subject land since transactions in contravention of the 1977
Act - Legal heirs of assignees, if entitled to compensation on account
of the resumption order:
Held: Assignees not entitled to any compensation on account of the
resumption order of the assigned land - Resumption denotes a punitive
action by the State to take back the right or an interest in a property which
was granted by it - Term 'resumption' must not be confl ated with the term
'acquisition' as employed within the meaning of Art. 300-A so as to create
a right to compensation - Also allegations against the assignees for being
involved with the land mafi a to usurp the subject land for private interest
- Constitution of India - Art. 300 A - Compensation - Telengana Land
Revenue Act of 1317 - ss. 54, 58, 58A and 166B. [Paras 73 and 74]
Property Laws - Term 'acquisition' and 'resumption' - Diff erence
between:
Held: Acquisition denotes a positive act on behalf of the State to
deprive an individual's enjoyment of a pre-existing right in a property in
furtherance of its policy whereas resumption denotes a punitive action
by the State to take back the right or an interest in a property which was
granted by it in the fi rst place - Term 'resumption' must not be confl ated
605
with the term 'acquisition' as employed within the meaning of Art. 300-A
of the Constitution so as to create a right to compensation - Constitution
of India - Art. 300 A. [Paras 73]
Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of res judicata - Application of -
Eff ective test to determine:
Held: Effective test to distinguish between a fundamental or
collateral determination is hinged on the inquiry of whether the concerned
determination was so vital to the decision that without which the decision
itself cannot stand independently - Any determination, despite being
deliberate or formal, cannot give rise to application of the doctrine of res
judicata if they are not fundamental in nature. [Paras 45]
Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of res judicata or the extended
doctrine of constructive res judicata - Application of - Stated. [Paras
40-48]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Govt. of A.P. v. Gudepu Sailoo (2000) 4 SCC 625 : [2000] 3 SCR
791; Parvant Nagar v. the Collector and District Magistrate 2008 SCC
OnLine AP 477; G.V.K. Rama Rao vs Bakelite Hylam Employees CoOp. 1997 SCC OnLine AP 200; S. Santhanam v State of A.P. 2006 SCC
OnLine AP 145; LAO cum Revenue Divisional Offi cer, Chevella Division
v Mekala Pandu 2004 SCC OnLine AP 217; Yeshwant Deorao Deshmukh
v Walchand Ramchand Kothari (1950) SCC 766; Dharama Reddy v
Sub-Collector, Bodhan 1986 SCC OnLine AP 141; A. Jithendernath v.
Jubilee Hills Coop. House Building Society (2006) 10 SCC 96 : [2006]
1 Suppl. SCR 702; Pawan Kumar Gupta v. Rochi Ram Nag Deo (1999)
4 SCC 243 : [1999] 2 SCR 767; Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E. Edr.
v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer (2000) 3 SCC 350 : [2000] 1 SCR 1095;
State of UP v. Nawab Hussain (1977) 2 SCC 806 : [1977] 3 SCR 428;
Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy
(2003) 7 SCC 667 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 698; Mahadeo v. Sovan Devi
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1118; Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR
1963 SC 395 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 713; Suraj Lamp and Industries
Private Limited v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 : [2011] 11 SCR
YADAIAH AND ANR. v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND
OTHERS
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
606
848; Dharma Naika v. Rama Naika (2008) 14 SCC 517 : [2008] 2 SCR
451; Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka (1984) 3 SCC 301 : [1984] 3
SCR 502; A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd v Ramesh Singh
and other connected appeals Civil Appeal No. 7904-7912 of 2012, 4
August 2014 - referred to.
The Doctrine of Res judicata by Justice KR Handley, Spencer
Bower, Turner and Handley: (3rd edn, LexisNexis Butterworths, 1996)
pages 103-107 - referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4835
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.2021 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WA No.202 of 2010.
With
Civil Appeal Nos.4836, 4837, 4838, 4839 and 4840 of 2023.
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, S. Niranjan Reddy, Huzefa Ahmadi, Muralidhar
Rao Unnam, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advs., G. N. Reddy, Tripurari Ray,
Yatish Mohan, Vivek Gupta, Vinayak Mohan, Anirudh Ray, Nidhiram,
Vishnoo Chandra, Sughosh Subramanyam, Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi,
Sumanth Nookala, Ms. Shahrukh Alam, Divyesh Pratap Singh, Ms.
Shivangi Singh, Ms. Ishita Bedi, Ms. Ranjana Singh, G.N. Reddy,
Nidhiram, Vishnoo Chandra, Ravi Shankar, Advs. for the Appellants.
C.S. Vaidyanathan, V. Giri, Sr. Advs., Sriharsha Peechara,
Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Ms. Pallavi, Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu,
Ms. Harshita Gupta, Ms. Ankita Gupta, for M/s. Venkat Palwai Law
Associates, Advs. for the Respondents.
607
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
SURYA KANT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated
31.12.2021 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Telengana
whereby the intra-court appeal preferred by the State of Telengana and its
revenue authorities has been allowed, reversing the decision of the learned
Single Judge. Consequently, the resumption order dated 27.01.2007, which
forms the core of the present disputes concerning the assignment of nonoccupied land in the 1960s to landless Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
persons [Hereinafter, 'Assignees'] for the purpose of cultivation, has been
confi rmed.
3. Since these appeals arise out of a long-drawn saga wherein multiple
rounds of litigation occurred between the parties before various forums,
including this Court, it would be appropriate to discuss the same at length
before delving into the issues of law raised before us concerning res judicata,
nature of assignment and violation of conditions of assignment. It may also
be mentioned before embarking into the factual matrix that this Court vide
order dated 06.09.2022 had impleaded the Greyhounds Commando Force
through the Additional Director General of Police as a Party-Respondent
for eff ective adjudication since the land in dispute has been statedly allotted
and is being used for training its forces.
A. FACTS
4. The genesis of these disputes began on 28.10.1953 when the
Revenue Department of the then undivided State of Andhra Pradesh took a
policy decision and communicated the sanction granted for the assignment
of 'Astabl Kanchi'1 land measuring 200 Acres comprising the revenue
estate of Manchirevula village situated in the Ranga Reddy District to the
Assignees. The relevant part of the said policy decision stated that:-
1
'Kancha' is the term employed for land which absolutely vests in favour of the
government.
YADAIAH AND ANR. v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND
OTHERS
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
608
"......I am directed to communicate Government sanction for
the assignment of culturable area to the extent of 200 acres out
of Astabl Kanchi situated in Manchirral village to the landless
Harijans under special laoni Rules after regular phodi work by the
land Record and Settlement Department. The remaining area of
the Kancha may be kept in fact and auctioned every year...." (sic)
5. The Collector after this communication, vide letter dated 07.11.1959,
fi nally submitted a report of eligible individuals and directed that 'phodi'
or sub-division of the Subject Land be conducted before its assignment.
However, after further inspection by revenue authorities, the Collector
noted in a subsequent letter dated 04.06.1960 that land measuring 142
Acres 39 Guntas was fi t for cultivation instead of the initially proposed area
of 200 Acres. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Offi cer vide his letter
dated 16.08.1960, directed the concerned Tehsildar to initiate assignment
proceedings for land measuring 142 Acres 39 Guntas in Survey No. 393
of Village Manchirevula [Hereinafter, 'Subject Land'] and directed that
process be initiated for grant of special Laoni2 Patta to the eligible persons.
6. It is to be noted that before any kind of patta could be granted, the
State Government issued an order dated 29.06.1961 [Hereinafter, 'GOM
1122'] overriding all previous orders which governed assignment and
alienation. The said order provided exhaustive guidelines for assignment
and alienation of Government lands, the relevant part whereof as applicable
to the Subject Land reads as follows:-
"5. The Government further direct that no vacant land in the
Greater Hyderabad city or within a belt of 10 miles around the
city should be assigned or otherwise disposed of until Government
have assessed the requirements of various Department for building
accommodation in the city."
7. It was only after GOM 1122 was brought into eff ect, that the State
Government issued temporary pattas dated 21.10.1961 [Hereinafter,
'Temporary Pattas'] to each of the selected Assignees. It would be
2
During the course of hearing, it has been brought into our attention that term 'Laoni'
loosely means to 'bring into cultivation'.
609
appropriate for proper analysis of the controversy to reproduce the contents
of one such Temporary Patta dated 21.10.1961 granted to an Assignee which
is as follows:-
"FORM-G
(Under Rule 9 (g)
Written permission to occupy land
(to be given by the Tahsildar under Loani Rules)
Temporary patta is granted to Shri Mylarapu Pedda Gandaiah
S/o. Venkaiah, resident of Manchirevula village, Tahsil Hyderabad
West, Hyderabad District, to occupy the following land and to
cultivate the same, till the phodi work is completed.
1. Village Name
:
Manchirevula
2. Taluk
:
Hyderabad West
3. Sy. No.
:
393
4. Total extent
:
326.28
5. Extent given under patta
:
Ac. 7.06 gts.
6. Cess
:
Rs. 7.15
7. Nature of land
:
Kancha
8. Classifi cation
:
Dry
Sri Mylarapu Pedda Gandaiah has to pay Rs. 7.15 per year
from 1961-1962 for the land granted for occupation under this
permit as assessment.
After the podhi is completed, the area and assessment are
both fi xed by the Dept. of Land Records (Survey and Settlement).
The Pattadar is bound to pay the assessment so fi xed, but this
change will take eff ect only form the year following in which such
change has been made as a result of the compk1jon of phodi work
by the Dept. of land Record.
(In the case of land granted as not Transferable)
YADAIAH AND ANR. v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND
OTHERS [SURYA KANT, J.]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
610
The Grantee is not empowered to transfer the occupancy
without the sanction previously obtained from the Collector. This
permission to occupy shall not confer the right to mine on the land
or collect minerals therefrom. The right on the toddy trees will
vest with the Government.
Sd/-Tehsildar
24.10.1961
Hyderabad West" (sic)
(Emphasis Applied)
There are some other policy decisions also that have brought in
restrictions regarding transfer of Subject Land which we would deal in the
later part of this judgement. However, it is pertinent to note that afterwards,
permanent pattas were granted to the Assignees within a few years of the
issuance of Temporary Pattas. The Appellants are now claiming devolution
of interest and ownership rights over diff erent parcels of the Subject Land
through the original Assignees.
8. After the grant of these pattas, the situation remained dormant
for almost three decades. Meanwhile, with the passage of time, the city
of Hyderabad, like all other capital cities across the nation, fl ourished on
account of rapid urbanisation and swift economic development, making
land a scarce and valuable resource. Consequently, the Subject Land also
rose in value. On 14.08.1991, all the Assignees are stated to have executed
a general power of attorney [Hereinafter, 'GPA'] in favour of one M.A.
Baksh. The GPA gave M.A. Baksh the following amongst other powers in
respect of the Subject Land:-
"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 fi t.
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
611
or any portion thereof to such person(s) or body and for such
consideration arid upon such terms and conditions and for such
purpose(s) as the said attorney may in his absolute discretion deem
fi t 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), fi rms, company/ companies
or society/ societies upon such terms and conditions as my said
attorney may in his absolute discretion deem fi t."
(Emphasis Applied)
9. Thereafter, acting upon the abovementioned GPA, M.A. Baksh
sold a part of the Subject Land to private individuals between the period
of January 1992 to October 1992 as brought to our notice by the parties
through sale deeds placed on record. On perusal of these sale deeds, one
crucial feature which is to be noted is that M.A. Baksh envisaged to divide
the Subject Land into smaller plots akin to a residential colony as each sale
deed has been allotted a unique plot number along with roads earmarked
in the site plans attached thereto.
10. It seems that at the time M.A. Baksh was carrying out the process
of the sale of the Subject Land as a residential colony, he came across the
provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers)
Act of 1977 [Hereinafter, '1977 Act'] which prohibited transfer of land
assigned to landless poor by the Government. Realizing the potential pitfall
in carrying out the sales, he applied for clarifi cation through a letter dated
18.09.1992 to the concerned Mandal Revenue Offi cer and enquired about
the applicability of the 1977 Act. The Mandal Revenue Offi cer vide a memo
dated 23.09.1992, responded to M.A. Baksh's query saying that:-
"The petitioner Sri M.A. Baksh, G.P.A. Holder of Mr. Mylaram
Jangaiah and others is informed that as per written permission
issued by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West vide reference
No.A6/8524/80 to occupy an extent of 143-00 acres out of Sy. No.
393 of Manchirevulu village in form (G) under rule 9(g) of Laouni
YADAIAH AND ANR. v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND
OTHERS [SURYA KANT, J.]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
612
rules, 1950 to Sri Mylaram Jangaiah and (19) others, Harijans of
same village. Subsequently in 1965 the said land was made Laouni
patta.in the name of the above 20 persons, and subdivided as Sy.
No. 393/1 to 393/20 Ac.7-06gts., each individual.
As per rule 9(g) of the Laouni rules 1950 the written permission
in form (G) is issued only after confi rmation of sale; The sale of
such lands is not hit by the provision of A.P. Assignment lands
(Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977." (sic)
(Emphasis Applied)
11. Notwithstanding this clarifi cation by the Mandal Revenue Offi cer,
some of the Assignees cancelled the GPA executed in favor of M.A. Baksh
in October 1992, probably fearing that the state authorities would cancel
the allotment of the Subject Land. They also issued a public notice wherein
they declared that any sale entered into by M.A. Baksh on their behalf was
not binding.
12. Fast forward a year and somewhere in November 1993, the Police
Department sent a requisition for land in Manchirevula village to set up
operational headquarters and training centres for its special forces, now
known as 'Greyhounds Commando Force'. It was only when the revenue
authorities analysed their records that their attention was drawn towards the
Subject Land and the legal infi rmities associated with it, starting the saga
of present legal tussle between the parties.
13. After that the offi ce of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District issued a
show cause notice dated 28.03.1994 [Hereinafter, 'First SCN'] proposing
to cancel the assignment of Subject Land. The relevant extracts of the First
SCN containing the grounds of cancellation are to the following eff ect:-
"The issue was examined in details with reference in rule position
and other aspect and found that the alleged assignment is irregular,
illegal and liable to be cancelled on the basis of following grounds:
(i) The Form-G Certifi cate issued are for temporary occupation
and thereby implementation in Falsalpatti 1961-62 is illegal.
(ii) The alleged assignment ought to have been processed under
Assignment Rule, 1958 instead of Laoni Rules, 1950.
613
(iii) The alleged assignment is in contravention of the ban order of
assignment issued in G.O. Ms. No. 1222, dated 29.06.1961.
(iv) After issue of Form-G Certifi cate for temporary occupation
there is no Sub-Division took place and supplementary Sethwar
issued, therefore the alleged assignment is not fi nal and temporary
occupation certifi cates cannot be treated assignment pattas.
(v) That the land is unfi t for cultivation and thereby the alleged
assignment is irregular and indicate malafi de intention.
(vi) The alleged assignees have not put the land for cultivation and
kept in fallow and thereby they have violated the condition laid
down in Rule 19 of Laoni Rules, 1950.
(vii) The alleged assignees while violating the condition of
assignment have executed a G.P.A. in favour of Sri M.A. Baksh
authorizing him to sell the land."
(Emphasis Applied)
14. The Assignees fearing consequential dispossession, approached
the High Court which vide its order dated 03.05.1994, held that the writ
petition was premature and directed them to fi le an explanation within one
week, but protected them from dispossession in light of the pending show
cause proceedings. The Assignees in turn fi led their explanation before
the Collector wherein they submitted that assignment was valid as per the
applicable law and that there was no bar on sale of the Subject Land.
15. Strangely, instead of the District Collector, proceedings were
entrusted to the District Revenue Offi cer who vide his order dated 15.09.1994
held that the First SCN was unsustainable. On account of this development,
the District Collector through an order dated 03.01.1995, exercised his
suo motu revisionary powers under Section 166-B of the Telangana Land
Revenue Act of 1317 Fasli [Hereinafter, '1317 Fasli Act'] and suspended
the order dated 15.09.1994 passed by the District Revenue Offi cer pending
further examination/orders. Thereafter, the Collector sent a letter to the
Secretary, Revenue Department for ratifi cation of the order dated 03.01.1995,
but since no notice was given to Assignees as required under Section 166B of 1317 Fasli Act, the Government declined the request for ratifi cation
YADAIAH AND ANR. v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND
OTHERS [SURYA KANT, J.]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
614
of the said order. Ultimately, notices were issued to the Assignees and
the Government vide its memo dated 24.01.1996 ratifi ed the order dated
03.01.1995. It further directed that fi nal orders be passed after completion
of the inquiry.
16. The Assignees fi led separate writ petitions against the Collector's
order dated 03.01.1995 as well as the memo dated 24.01.1996, both of
which were decided vide a common order of the Learned Single Judge
dated 01.09.1997 wherein the court set aside the orders on the ground that
the initiation of revisional power under Section 166-B of 1317 Fasli Act
was an unreasonable and arbitrary attempt to invalidate the assignment after
an undue delay of more than 34 years. It must be noted that the intra-court
appeal against the order dated 01.09.1997 was also dismissed by a Division
Bench of the High Court through its order dated 14.09.1998.
17. The State Government assailed the High Court order dated
14.09.1998 before this Court and vide judgement dated 28.04.2000 reported
as Govt. of A.P. v. Gudepu Sailoo3, the State's appeal was allowed to
the extent that the proceedings conducted before the District Revenue
Offi cer which culminated into the order dated 15.09.1994, were held to be
unsustainable. It was further held that the proceedings should have taken
place before the Collector, particularly in view of the directions given by the
High Court in its order dated 03.05.1994. Hence, the Collector was directed
to complete the proceedings initiated vide his order dated 03.01.1995 which
was later on ratifi ed by the memo dated 24.01.1996. The relevant part of the
judgement dated 28.04.2000 of this Court reads as follows:-
"We cannot subscribe to the view expressed by the High Court
in so far as the order passed by the District Revenue Offi cer
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 Offi cer 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
3
Govt. of A.P. v. Gudepu Sailoo (2000) 4 SCC 625.
615
Collector alone had to consider and take a fi nal decision in the
matter. The action initiated by the Collector and the ratifi cation·of
his order by the State Government are matters which should have
been allowed to take fi nal 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 Fasli.
We, therefore, dispose of this appeal fi nally with the direction to
the Collector to complete the proceedings, initiated by him by his
order dated 3rd of January, 1995 as ratifi ed by the Government
by its,order dated 24th of January, 1996, at an early date in
accordance with law."
(Emphasis Applied)
18. Consequently, proceedings pursuant to the First SCN were
initiated afresh by the Collector by issuing notice dated 17.08.2001
to the Assignees, many among whom were now represented by the
Appellants, informing that the proceedings would be taken up by
the Joint Collector in exercise of powers delegated by the Collector.
The Appellants furnished fresh explanation(s) on 27.08.2001 and
consequently the office of the Joint Collector passed a resumption
order dated 22.12.2001 in favour of the State noticing that:-
"In view of the circumstances explained above and since
the assignment itself is irregular and the assignees sold the
land in conttavention of the conditions of assignment and
also the assigned land has become urbanized and no longer
subserves the purpose of cultivation, I find no reason either
to upheld the orders of the District Revenue Officer, Ranga
Reddy passed in Procds.No. D1/275/94 Dated:15.9.1994 or
to revert back the land in Sy.No.393/ 1 to 393/20 totally
measuring an extent of Ac.142·39 of Mancllerevula village
of Rajendranagar Mandal to the assignees. The land should
be remained as Government land. Acoordingly the case is
disposed off duly setting aside the orders of District Revenue
YADAIAH AND ANR. v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND
OTHERS [SURYA KANT, J.]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
616
Oflicer, Ranga Reddy District passed in proceedings No.
Dl/275/94 Dated:l5-9-1994." (sic)
(Emphasis Applied)
19. The Joint Collector's order dated 22.12.2001 came to be challenged
before the High Court, which vide its order dated 04.04.2002 opined that
in view of this Court's judgement in Gudepu Sailoo4, the Joint Collector
had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the First SCN and directed the District
Collector to conduct the proceedings and pass appropriate orders after notice
to all parties. Resultantly, proceedings were conducted before the District
Collector wherein again resumption order dated 15.03.2003 was passed
in favour of the State. It must be noted that the reasoning provided in the
resumption orders dated 22.12.2001 and 15.03.2003 is more or less identical.
20. The Appellants laid a challenge to the resumption order dated
15.03.2003 and vide its order dated 21.04.2006, the High Court set aside
the same as well the First SCN, primarily for the reasons as are summed up
in the following paragraphs of its judgment:-
"14. The principal ground on which the assignments soμght
to be cancelled by invoking the review powers under section
166-B of the Act is execution of GPA by the assignees in favour
of the predecessor in interest. As on this day, the GPA holder
is not alive and even if any power of attorney exists, it ceases
with his death. Therefore, no cause survives for the District
Revenue Offi cer to take suo motu review. The other question
is whether the assignments made in favour of the petitioners
and their predecessor interest is contrary to the Rules then in
existence. That issue is into requircd to be examined after a lapse
of nearly 40 years. The Laoni patta certifi cates came to be issued
in accordance with the provisions of Laoni, Rules, 1950. Merely
because those rules came to be amended by substituting some
other rules cannot be a ground to exercise suo mo to review by
the District Revenue Offi cer or the District Collector under Sec.
166-B of the Act.
4
ibid.
617
15. In view of the above discussion, I fi nd that the show cause
notice issued by the District Revenue Offi cer, R.R. District is not
legal dnd proper. When once the show cause notice is set aside,
the basis for passing the order impugned in the writ· petitions
by the Joint Collector canriot be said to be well founded. Before
parting the case, I deem it appropriate to observe that If there Is
any contravention of the conditions imposed in the assignment
order, the Government is always at liberty to cancel the same In
accordance with the provisions of law." (sic)
(Emphasis Applied)
21. Taking note of the above-reproduced liberty granted by the High
Court, the Deputy Collector-cum-Mandal Revenue Offi cer issued a fresh
show cause notice dated 11.12.2006 [Hereinafter, 'Second SCN'] wherein
the factum of the sale deeds entered by M.A. Baksh in the capacity of GPA
holder of the Assignees was duly noticed and it was asserted that the Subject
Land was liable to be resumed under the 1977 Act. The relevant part of the
Second SCN is as follows:-
"The Sale transaction above shown are impermissible and void
as same are in contravention of the provision of sub-section (2)
of section-3 of the Andhra Pradesh assigned land (Prohibition
of Transfer) Act, 1977. As per the prohibitions of the said Act
there is prohibition to sell the land assigned to you and hence sale
transaction above referred are invalid.
As per the Section 4 of A.P. assigned land (Prohibition of
transfer) Act, 1977, satisfi ed that the assignees are contravened
the provision of Sub-sectio (1) of section 3 in respect of assigned
lands bearing Sy. No. 393/l to 393/20 of Manchirevula Village.
Hence you are hereby show cause as to why the scheduled land
should not be resumed into Govt. Possession as in such manner
as prescribed by law." (sic)
Post the issuance of Second SCN, the Appellants tendered explanation
and proceedings took place pursuant thereto.
22. Eventually, the Second SCN culminated into the resumption order
dated 27.01.2007, wherein it was noted that the Assignees had alienated the
YADAIAH AND ANR. v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND
OTHERS [SURYA KANT, J.]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
618
land to M.A. Baksh through GPA, who in turn sold the land to subsequent
purchasers in the form of smaller plots. These transaction(s) were held to
be in contravention of Section 3(1), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the 1977 Act and
accordingly, the Subject Land was ordered to be resumed under Section 4
thereof. It would also be relevant to mention that the resumption order dated
27.01.2007 also noticed that most of the Subject Land was still fallow and
unsuitable for cultivation as it was covered by large boulders/rocks.
23. The Appellants assailed the resumption order dated 27.01.2007
before the High Court in a writ petition which came to be decided in their
favour by a learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 05.02.2010 primarily
on two grounds - fi rstly that the Second SCN and the resumption order dated
27.01.2007 raised the identical issues in respect of Subject Land which stood
already decided by the High Court vide its order dated 21.04.2006. Hence,
proceedings emanating from the Second SCN were barred by the principle
of res judicata and an abuse of process of law; secondly that the assignments
were governed by the Laoni Rules of 1950 instead by the subsequent GOM
1122, as possession stood granted way back in 1940 much earlier than the
date GOM 1122 came into force. It is also useful to mention that accordingly
to the learned Single Judge, the liberty granted in the previous High Court
order dated 21.04.2006 regarding cancellation of Subject Land was only
concerned with `future contravention' of the assignment conditions.
24. Being piqued on account of the order of the learned Single Judge,
the State preferred an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench of the
High Court. The said writ appeal has been allowed in the Respondents'
favour via the impugned judgement whereby the resumption order dated
27.01.2007 stands upheld for the following reasons: -
a) The proceedings under the Second SCN were not hit by the doctrine
of res judicata or constructive res judicata, as the same concerned
the sale deeds executed by M.A. Baksh and the consequent action
under the 1977 Act, which was not an issue decided by the High
Court vide its order dated 21.04.2006 whereby the First SCN was
set aside.
b) The learned Single Judge had erroneously construed the
liberty granted in the order dated 21.04.2006 in respect of
fresh cancellation proceedings to be only for future violation
619
of assignment conditions as no such inference could be drawn
from the wording of the said order. It was also held that this
interpretation virtually amounted to re-writing the order dated
21.04.2006, especially in view of the fact that the review petition
against the same, seeking to delete the relevant part granting liberty
was specifi cally dismissed by the High Court.
c) The Subject Land was not alienable either under the Laoni Rules of
1950 or under the revised land assignment rules of 1958 and hence
it comes under the defi nition of 'assigned land' as provided in the
1977 Act. The issue of applicability of regulatory regime on the
assigned land stood settled by this Court's judgement in Gudepu
Sailoo5 whose relevant part in this context reads as follows:-
"....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..."
d) The Division Bench also distinguished the decision of a co-ordinate
bench of the High Court in Letter sent from Plot No.338, Parvant
Nagar v. the Collector and District Magistrate6 wherein it was
held that land assigned under Rule 9 of Laoni Rules of 1950 by way
of market value collection would not be hit by the provisions of the
1977 Act whereunder alienation of assigned land was prohibited.
It was specifi cally noted that the Subject Land was granted free
of cost to the Assignees without any action or payment of market
value as envisaged under Form 9(G) of the Laoni Rules of 1950
which was relied upon by the Appellants. The Division Bench,
therefore, upheld the condition mentioned in the assignment itself
which barred transfer without the consent of the Collector.
5
Gudepu Sailoo (n 3).
6
Letter sent from Plot No.338, Parvant Nagar v. the Collector and District Magistrate
2008 SCC OnLine AP 477.
YADAIAH AND ANR. v.