WP/17866/2020 of Ganne Rangamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2024

ORDER:-

Heard Sri P.Sri Ramulu Naidu, learned counsel appearing for Ms. Palem Lakshmi Priya, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps.

2. Challenging the proceedings of the respondents in notifying the lands of the petitioner, admeasuring Ac.7.14 cents and Ac.2.86 cents in Sy.Nos.371/2 and 375/2, respectively, of Rajampet Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District, in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A (1) (a) of the Registration Act, 1908, the present writ petition is filed.

3. It is contended that the petitioner has succeeded through inheritance to the properties in Sy.Nos.371/2 and 375/2 of Rajampet Revenue Village, Kadapa District, admeasuring Ac.7.14 cents and Ac.2.86 cents, respectively, in support of her title, possession and enjoyment of the properties, she relies on the following documents:

i) The Register of Holdings (from 1914 to 1956).

ii) Registered Sale Deed No.730 of 1931 under which late Kondaiah , father of the petitioner purchased from one Jagannatha Shetty.

iii) The Statement of Encumbrance on Property (from 01.01.1956 to 27.06.1980 and thereafter).

iv) Mortagage certificate wherein the subject properties were mortgaged to the A.P.Khadi Village Industries in 1972 and to the Government in 1968, 1957 etc.

v) Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds, 1-B records, Adangals, to show the petitioners right, title and possession over the Property.

4. It is contended that the petitioner and her sisters partitioned the properties acquired through inheritance from their father in Sy.Nos.371/2, 375/2, 418, 419/2, 555. It is contended that when the petitioner had proposed for sale of her properties, she had come to know of the impugned proceedings.

It is stated that the subject lands in the present writ petition had fallen to the share of the writ petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has made an application dated 30.05.2018 in respect of Sy.No.371/2 in Form No.III seeking deletion of the properties categorizing the same as dotted lands and similarly application dated 24.11.2017 in Form No.III, in respect of the Sy.No.375/2. It is further stated that the status of the application in the website pertaining to Sy.No.371-2 is shown as forwarded to Joint Collector on 19.12.2018 and counter affidavit of the respondents states that no decision has been taken in the application and with regard to Sy.No.375-2 the status is shown as rejected on 19.12.2018 by the 5[th ]respondent without assigning any reasons.

5. It is contended that the petitioner thereafter verified website and found the categorization of her properties enlisting the same in prohibitory list under Section 22-A (1) (a) of the Registration Act,1908. The 3[rd] respondent forwarded the list to the 6[th] and 7[th ]respondents prohibiting the properties from registration under the provisions of Section 22-A (1) (a) of the Registration Act,1908. The properties of the petitioner is shown in the prohibitory list at Sl.Nos.139 and 141 as “assigned” and “A.W” respectively.

6. The counter affidavit of the 5[th ]respondent-Tahsildar, reflects that the lands of the petitioner in Sy.No.375/2 in an extent of Ac.2.86 as DKT and 371/2 as hereditary. It is contended by the 5[th ]respondent that as per the Assigned Lands Register, the subject lands are assigned Lands in the name of the petitioner Ganne Rangamma.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have not shown any proceedings granting D-Form Pattas in respect of the subject lands in favour of either the petitioner or any other. The Counter affidavit does not state anything with regard to the said documents except saying as assigned lands without filing any proof, would establish that the respondents assertion is without any material. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the extents of D-Form Patta would normally either 5 Acres or less than 5 Acres. Hence granting of D-Form Patta for 10 Acres, as averred by the respondents would not arise. It is further contended that from the RH, the lands are Patta lands of Jagannatha Shetty from whom the father of the Petitioner has purchased vide sale deed No.730/1931 dated 06.07.1931. He thus contends that the proceedings of the respondents notifying the subject lands under Section 22-A (1) (a) of the Registration Act, 1908, is contrary to the principle laid down by the Full Bench decision of erstwhile composite High Court of Judicature for the state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others[1].

8. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contends that the lands are assigned lands and the petitioner without availing the alternative remedy provided under the provisions of Section 22-A (1) A (4) of the Registration Act, 1908, has approached the Court.

9. Considered the rival submissions. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary, observed as under:

“In so far as clause (a) is concerned, the concerned District Collectors shall also indicate the statute under which a transaction and its registration is prohibited. Further in respect of the properties covered under clause (b), they shall clearly indicate which of the Governments own the property.”

10. The Division Bench in the same case disposing of the writ appeals in terms of the Full Bench decision further observed as under:

“The competent authority shall prepare the list of assigned lands with the condition of non-alienability and forward the list to Sub-Registrar/Registering Authority under the AP. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short "Act 1977"). The petitioners who claim to have lands assigned prior to 1954 without the condition of non-alienability are given liberty to place details of assignment and decisions of this Court on the applicability of "Act 1977" to such assignment, for updating and operating the prohibitory list by these authorities under Section 22-A of the Act.”

11. As noted from the impugned proceedings the column relating to the name of the owner is mentioned as “Government” and the relevant column of “reasons for prohibition” is mentioned as “assigned”. The entire Sy.No.371/2 is classified as assigned and Sy.No.375 without mentioning the extent, the “owner” is shown as “Government”, “reasons for prohibition” as “A.W”. From the same, it appears that the respondents have not conducted any enquiry while including the subject lands under the prohibitory list. As observed by the Division Bench referred supra, if the appropriate authority is desirous of including the land as assigned prior to 1954, the same has to be by way of a notification under Section 22-A (1) (e) of the Registration Act,1908. In that view of the matter, as observed above the authority in respect of Survey No.375, did not specify if the land covered under the said survey number falls under “assignment” category. Government has also issued G.O.Ms.No. 575 dated 16.11.2018 to delete the lands assigned prior to 1954 from the purview of Section 22-A of the Registration Act,1908. The petitioners have through the material placed before the Court have demonstrated that the their grandfather has purchased it in the year 1931 from one Jagannatham Chetty. The respondents, except to say that the subject lands are assigned lands did not dispute the chain of title demonstrated by the petitioner. In view of the above, the proceedings, placing the properties under prohibitory category from alienation is not sustainable as the same does not appear to be supported by any enquiry being conducted nor does it appear to have been made after verification of revenue records, in as much as the authorities have failed to establish as to, in whose favour the lands were assigned. The decision thus arrived at by the authorities is not in accordance with the principle laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary,and is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the same is accordingly set aside as far as it relates to the subject lands of the petitioner is concerned.

12. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order passed under Section 22-A (1) (a) of the Registration Act,1908, in so far as it relates to the subject lands in an extent of Ac.7.14 cents and Ac.2.86 cents in Sy.Nos.371/2 and 375/2, respectively, of Rajampet Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District. The authorities are directed to entertain the documents submitted for registration in respect of the subject land and process the same, if the same is otherwise in order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

Date:31.12.2024 ANI

____________________________________

JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

ANI

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION No.17866 of 2020

Date:31.12.2024