WP/37282/2022 of PATHAN SHABEER KHAN ( DIED) as per L.Rs P4 and P5 Vs THE STAE OF AP on 26 April 2026

1. PATHAN SHABEER K MAHOOB ALI KHAN, RESIDING AT D.NO. AND MANDALAM, AN

2. SHAIK MOHAMMAD AGED 73 YEARS, PETAGADDA STRE ANNAMAYYA DISTRI

3. PULLAMPETA YELLA YEARS,

OCC NAGIREDDYPALLI V DISTRICT

4. PATAN SHAMEEM ABOUT 52 YEARS, BEPARI NANDALUR VILLAGE

5. PATAN SHAMEER ABOUT

YEAR STREET,NANDALUR DISTRICT. PETITIO RECORD AS L.RS O THE COURT'S ORDE

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) E TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT E SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDA PETITION NO: 37282 OF 2022 KHAN ( DIED) AS PER L.RS P4 AND P5 , MUSLIM, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC. B .4/ 50, BEPARI STREET, NANDALUR NNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ZAFFAR, SON OF AMEN SAHEB, OCCUPATION. BUSINESS, RESI EET, NANDALUR VILLAGE AND CT. AIAH, SON OF NARASAIAH, HINDU, CUPATION. BUSINESS, RESIDI VILLAGE, NANDALUR MANDAL, ANN BANU,, W/O LATE SHABEER KHA OCC HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT D E AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRIC KHAN,, S/O LATE SHABEER KHA RS, RESIDING AT D.NO.4/50, VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANN ONER NOS. 4 AND 5 ARE BROU OF THE DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER ER DT.16.06.2025 IN I.A.NO. 01 OF 202 ...PETIT

AVA 5, SON OF USINESS, R VILLAGE MUSLIM, DING AT MANDAL, AGED 72 NG AT NAMAYYA AN, AGED D.NO.4/50, STREET, CT. AN, AGED BEPARI NAMAYYA UGHT ON R AS PER

5. TIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STAE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, TIRUPATHI

3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

4. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

5. THE TAHSILDAR, CHANDARAGIRI MANDALAM, CHANDARAGIRI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1..

2. NAGENDRA BABU PARAGATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Nagendra Babu Paragati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Chandra Shekar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

2. The instant writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated 10.10.2022 issued by the 5th respondent rejecting the application of the petitioners for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds.

3. It is contended that land in an extent of Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.No.136/1B of Thondavada Village, Chandragiri Mandal, Tirupati District (erstwhile

Chittoor District) was assigned in favour of one Surabathini Nagulu vide D- Patta dated 28.07.1997 under Ex-servicemen category. In recognition of his possession and title, the 5th respondent issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his favour.

4. After the demise of the said assignee, the petitioners entered into an agreement of sale with the legal heirs of late Surabathini Nagulu for purchase of the said land. Accordingly, the document was presented before the Sub- Registrar for registration. However, the Sub-Registrar insisted for submission of a “No Objection Certificate” from the Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.12132 of 2012. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Sub-Registrar to act on the document presented by the petitioners for registration without insisting for submission of NOC from the Collector, if 10 years period had elapsed from the date of issuance of the assignment in favour of Ex-servicemen.

5. In pursuance thereof, the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners was accepted and the same was registered as Document No.2042 of 2012 dated 24.05.2012 under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land.

6. Thereafter, on 09.05.2014, the petitioners have submitted an application to the 5th respondent seeking issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the subject land. No orders were passed on the said application, challenging the said inaction the petitioners filed W.P.No.5186 of 2014. The said writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file an application under Form 6-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989 and directing the 5th respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

7. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners filed the application; however, the 5th respondent, vide proceedings dated 29.10.2014, rejected the same. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent confirmed the order of the 5th respondent dismissing the appeal vide order dated 23.10.2017. Upon dismissal of the said appeal, the petitioners filed Revision before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent confirmed the order of the 4th and 5th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein approached the 1st respondent Government. The 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 19.06.2020 confirmed the orders of rejection. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.18640 of 2020. On 22.08.2022, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the 5th respondent to reconsider the application of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, taking into consideration the earlier orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.12132 of 2012 and W.P.No.5186 of 2014. In consequent thereof, the 5th respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 10.10.2022.

8. It is contended by Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Tahsildar did not take into consideration the orders passed by the this Court in the earlier round of litigations in W.P.No.12132 of 2012 and W.P.No.5186 of 2014, the issue whether the patta granted in favour of the Ex-servicemen is alienable or not has been decided by this court in the order passed in W.P.No.12132 of 2012 and the Tahsildar without bearing the same in mind had went to observe that the assignment made in favour of the Ex-servicemen was not in accordance with procedure. Thus, the impugned proceedings are not sustainable.

9. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel placing reliance on the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12132 of 2012, submits that this Court had categorically observed that the lands that have been assigned to an ex-serviceman, are excluded from the purview of the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,1977.

10. He further submits that in the light of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1994, an ex-serviceman is at liberty to alienate the assigned land after completion of ten years from the date of assignment, and pursuant to the directions of this Court, the document was duly registered.

11. It is also contended that, this Court in W.P.No.18640 of 2020, has categorically held that the respondents are not justified in refusing to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds on the ground that the subject land is not alienable. It is further contended that only to thwart the claim of the petitioners the respondents have gone into the validity or otherwise of the Patta granted in favour of the Ex-servicemen.

12. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on proceedings dated 07.10.2010 of the Tahsildar, wherein permission was sought from the District Collector for grant of No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner’s vendor Sri S.Mrudani Prasad, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993, under which the Ex-Military personnel were granted liberty to alienate assigned lands after the prescribed period therein.

13. Sri M.Chandra Shekar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents contends that the subject land is classified as river poramboke and was subsequently converted into A.W.D. land, and it was not assigned under the Ex-Servicemen quota. He further submits that the patta, if any, granted in favour of the original assignee was only a temporary patta for cultivation purposes.

14. Considered the submissions.

15. The learned Assistant Government Pleader's contention is not sustainable. A perusal of the D-Form Patta clearly indicates that the subject land was assigned in favour of an Ex-Serviceman, and the Conditions of assignment, particularly condition no.10 of the patta, also specify that the assignment was made subject to the conditions that would be applicable to the category of Ex-servicemen.

16. In any event, the respondents, after the registration of the sale deed that was registered in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the order of this court in W.P.No.12132 of 2012, cannot contend that the assignment made in favour of the Ex-servicemen was not in accordance with the procedure that was in vogue, and deny the petitioners claim for mutation and issuance of Pattadar Pass Books.

17. Having regard to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12132 of 2012 & the G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent-Tahsildar are liable to be set aside.

18. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside. The 5th respondent is directed to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour, in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

19. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 27.04.2026 BSK

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 37282 OF 2022

Date: 27.04.2026 BSK