NOTE
The subject matter of the present Curative Petition pertains to land to the extent
of Ac 7-06 Gts each allotted to Harijans for cultivation. About 20 such individuals
were allotted and hence the total extent involved is about 143 Acres. It is relevant
to note that the said land was located under the Nizam reign and hence the
sanction order was issued in 1953 by the Government of Hyderabad.
POSSESSION-MISTAKE OF FACT:
At the outset it is submitted that cause for filing the present Curative Petition is
the heartburning finding that the predecessors of petitioners were put in
possession of the subject lands in 1961. Earlier observations of High Court as to
possession since 1953 are disregarded as a mistake of fact on the ground that
there are no material on record. It was specifically pleaded in the Writ Petition
that petitioners /predecessors were in occupation since 19401 and the learned
Single Judge accepted the same returning a finding that the new regime of 1958
Rules were inapplicable to the subject lands2. The said pleading is duly supported
by representations made by predecessors of petitioners evidencing that the
subject land in Sy.No.393 of Manchirevula village was granted around 1951 by
then Finance Minister of Hyderabad State and that they have been paying land tax
upto September 1959 3.
APPLICABLE LAW:
Another grievance causing grave miscarriage of justice was declaring that 1958
Rules4 are applicable to the subject lands ignoring the occupation of the
predecessors of petitioners from the Nizam era and the express contrary intention
in 1958 Clarification is excluded on the ground that predecessors of petitioners
were granted Ac.7-06 while the maximum limit that can be allotted under the
1
Pg.287 Para 2
2
Pg.325
3
Pg.94
4
Pg.53-Counter Affidavit of Respondents. See Rul5 @Pg.55.
Page No.1
1958 Clarification was only 5 Acres of Dry Land5. Ex-facie the said conclusion is
unjust as the 1958 Rules also expressly mandate maximum limit of land that can
be allotted as 5 Acres of Dry Land and hence 1958 rules are also inapplicable
warranting confirmation of the order of Single Judge.
Ordinarily, law applicable on the date of allotment would be applicable.
However, by express language the applicability of law was made prospective to
the allotments to be made henceforth. Clause 7a of 1958 Clarification expressly
states that old cases are not to be treated as pending cases and 7b further
elaborates and recognizes that cases showing right of patta(not final patta) in
Government records are also not be treated as pending cases6. Thus 7b is
complete answer to the general principal of law that governmental
communications does not create any right7. It certainly crystalises the rules of the
allotment in express terms. Any contrary interpretation will cause grave
miscarriage of justice.
Similarly, reliance placed on the observations made in the order of this
Hon’ble Court by Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court was approved ignoring
the fact that Special Laoni Rules were not followed by the required notification
under Section 58-A of the Land Revenue Act and the same had no existence in the
eye of law8. Section 54 prescribing the procedure for acquiring unoccupied land is
declared to be an independent mode of allotment and the substantive provision of
Section 58 is rewritten as an independent mode of allotment incurring the right of
heritability and transferability9 alone. It is respectfully submitted that such an
interpretation causes grave miscarriage of justice to the petitioners and alike of
the Telangana region alone as no such condition of market value existed in
Telangana till 1958. Concept of Market Value was only introduced for Andhra
5
Pg.66 of Review Petition
6
Compilation @ Pg.7 Rule 7 (Page 8-9)
7
Review Petition @ Pg.63
8
Review Petition @ Pg.67
9
Review Petition @ Pg.68-Para 56-58
Page No.2
region for the first time in 195410. State of Andhra Pradesh came into existence in
1956.
Once the 1958 Rules are inapplicable, the condition of inalienability is not
met and the subject land cannot be treated as Assigned Land11 and beyond the
jurisdiction and reach of the Act of 1977.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW:
Contrary to the settled law that liberty to proceed in accordance with law does not
take away the defences available to the opposite party, the specific contention of
the Petitioners as to constructive res judicata was negated12 ignoring decades of
litigation and insurmountable burden on the petitioners to prosecute such
litigation. Facts of the case warranted liberal approach and not punishing the
petitioners by denying compensation also as per the extant policy of the
Government for their conduct13.
MARCH OF LAW:
Judicial Notice can be taken of the progress of the law. 1977 Act was enacted in
the combined State of Andhra Pradesh. After bifurcation in 2014, State of
Telangana adapted the 1977 Act. On 27.10.2023, the State of Andhra Pradesh
amended Sections 2 and 3 the 1977 Act confining the condition of non-alienation
to a maximum period of 20 years from the date of allotment. Section 4 was also
modified mandating that assignee shall be entitled to compensation as per market
value when assigned land is resumed for Public Purpose. Purportedly alienation
was sought to be made by petitioners in 1991, 30 years after assignment.
10
Review Petition @ Pg.70 para 58.
11
Compilation @ Pg.1 Section 2(1)-‘assigned land’
12
Review Petition @ Pg. 57-58 para 47
13
2020 (16) SCC 230 @ para 21
Page No.3
Page No.4
Page No.5
Page No.6
