Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/6093/2020 of Medapati Satyanaraya Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2024
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6093 OF 2020 Between: Medapati Satyanaraya Reddy, S/o. Late Narsireddy, Aged about
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOURPRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVAWRIT PETITION NO: 6093 OF 2020
Between:
Medapati Satyanaraya Reddy, S/o. Late Narsireddy, Aged[about][ 55]years.Occ. Agriculture, R/o.Lothugedda Village, Mentada Mandal, VizianagaramDistrict, Andhra Pradesh
...PETITIONER
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat,Velagapudi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Secretary.Velagapudi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Secretary.
2. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram Division, VizianagaramDistrict.District.
4. The Tahsildar, Mentada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
5. The Sub-Registrar, Stamps and Registration, Sub-Registrar office,Gajapathinagaram, Vizianagaram District.Gajapathinagaram, Vizianagaram District.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Courtmaybe pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writordirection declaring 1) the action of the 2"'^ respondent in notifying the landsin Sy.No.33/5, admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.31 cents of Vanka Somidavillage, Mentada Mandal, VizianagaramDistrictintheprohibitedlistpublishedinVizianagaramDistrictGazettenotificationR.C.NO.823/2014/E2dated10.04.2016asillegal,arbitrary2)theendorsement issued by the 4th respondent vide Rc No. 277 /2019/C.S
%••?.■r
dated 21.10.2019 as illegal, arbitrary, improper and without jurisdiction andconsequently direct the 2nd respondent to delete thepetitioner'slandsituated in Sy.No.33/5, admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.31 cents of VankaSomida village, Mentada Mandal, Vizianagaram District from theprohibitedlist published in Vizianagaram District Gazette.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courtmay bepleased to direct the 2"^^ respondent to release the lands in Sy.No.33/5,admeasuringanextentofAc.5.31cents,of VankaSomidavillageMentadaMandal,VizianagaramDistrictfromtheProhibitorylistofproperties under Amended Sec. 22A of the Registration Act1908 basingon the representation of the petitioner dated 26.08.2019and 23.10.2019.'
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TADDI NAGESWARA RAOCounsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUECounsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR STAMPS AND
REGISTRATION
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010098902020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3458]
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 6093/2020
Between;
MedapatiSatyanaraya Reddy,
...PETITIONER
AND
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
...RESPONDENT(S)
1.TADDI NAGESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard the learned counselfor the petitioner andlearnedAssistantGovernment Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.
2. Being aggrieved by the proceedings of the 7^^ respondent, enlisting thesubject lands of the petitioners located in Sy. No.33/5,in an extent of Ac.5.31cents of Vanka Somida Village, Mentada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, underthe list of prohibited properties for registration under Section 22 A (1) (a) ofsubject lands of the petitioners located in Sy. No.33/5,in an extent of Ac.5.31cents of Vanka Somida Village, Mentada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, underthe list of prohibited properties for registration under Section 22 A (1) (a) of RegistrationAct,1908(forshort“theAct”),videendorsementdated21.10.2019, the instant writ petition is filed.
3. Itis contended that the petitioner purchased the subject property in2011 from one Naramsetty Kishore Kumar, who was the[GPA][ holder][ of][ one]Sangamreddy Ravi Prasad. The said Sangamreddy Ravi[Prasad][ had,][ in][ turn,]purchased the same from one Podilapu Satyam, who was[the][ GPA][ holder][ of]SangamreddySarojini,wifeof the assigneeof thesubjectlandsunderex-servicemen quota.It is stated that in the year 2009, the said SangamreddySarojini, wife of the assignee, approached this Court by way of writ petition inW.P.No.20005 of 2009 seeking permission to sell the subject land, and'thisCourt granted interim direction as sought by her vide[order][ dated 18.09.2009]in W.P.M.P.No.26083of 2009.After thesaidpermission, SangamreddySarojini alienated the property for valid sale consideration.
4. Pursuant to the notification issued by the 2"^ -respondent keeping thesubject lands under the prohibitory list under Section[22] A[ (1) (a)][ of][ the][ Act,]the petitioner has made an application on 26.08.2019[and][ 23.10.2019][ to][ the]District Collector, Vizianagaram District, requesting to delete the subject landsfrom the proceedings issued under Section 22 A (1)(a) of the Act.TheDistrict Collector, in pursuance to the same, had asked[the][ Tahsildar][ to][ submit]the report.In connection to the same, the Tahsildar has issued the impugnedendorsement dated15.10.2009requiring the petitioner tofile copy of theD-form patta issuedin favour of the ex-servicemen,[NOC][ from][ the]DistrictCollector and a copy of the proceedings of the District[Collector][ or][ Revenue]subject lands under the prohibitory list under Section[22] A[ (1) (a)][ of][ the][ Act,]the petitioner has made an application on 26.08.2019[and][ 23.10.2019][ to][ the]District Collector, Vizianagaram District, requesting to delete the subject landsfrom the proceedings issued under Section 22 A (1)(a) of the Act.TheDistrict Collector, in pursuance to the same, had asked[the][ Tahsildar][ to][ submit]the report.In connection to the same, the Tahsildar has issued the impugnedendorsement dated15.10.2009requiring the petitioner tofile copy of theD-form patta issuedin favour of the ex-servicemen,[NOC][ from][ the]DistrictCollector and a copy of the proceedings of the District[Collector][ or][ Revenue]
DivisionalOfficer,deletingthesubjectlandfromthelistofprohibitedproperties under Section 22 A (1) (a) of the Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not anassignee. The question of possessing the D-form patta by the petitioner wouldnot arise, and so would the NOG either from the District[Collector][ or][ from][ the]RDO, since he has made an application to the District[Collector]itself fordeletionofthesubjectlandfromtheprohibitedlistofpropertiesforregistration.assignee. The question of possessing the D-form patta by the petitioner wouldnot arise, and so would the NOG either from the District[Collector][ or][ from][ the]RDO, since he has made an application to the District[Collector]itself fordeletionofthesubjectlandfromtheprohibitedlistofpropertiesforregistration.
6. Itis contendedby the learned counselfor the petitionerthathispredecessor in title, Smt. Sangamreddy Sarojini, has made an application tothe RDO for a grant of permission to dispose of the assigned land.The saidRDO vide proceedings dated 15.10.2009 has directed the Sub-Registrar todeletethelandfromthelistofprohibitedproperties andpermittedtheRegistrar to register these documents.7.Learned counsel for the petitioner further relying[on][ a][ circular][ Memo]issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,[A.P.][ Mangalagiri,]Guntur District vide CCLA’s Lr.No.Assn.l(1)/350/2022,[dated][ 04.05.2022][ and]referring to the clauses 12 and 17 of the said circular[Memo,][ urges][ that][ the]subject land may be deleted from thelistof prohibitedproperties underSection 22 A (1) (a) of the Act.
8. Learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for Revenue contendsthatpursuant to the Full Bench decisionin W.A.No.343 of[2015][ and]batch,anotification was issued under Section 22 A (1) (a)[of][ the][ Act][ and][ the][ same]would supersede all other earlier proceedings issued in respect of the subject land.Since the subject land is assigned in favour of the ex-servicemen quota with the condition of non-alienation.Therefore, the transfer of the subjectproperty is not permissible.
9. Considered the rival submissions.
10. Clauses 12 and 17 of the Circular Memo, dated 04.05.2022,[reads][ as]follows:
12. INCLUSION OF EX-SERVICEMEN ASSIGNED LANDS IN 22-A(1)(e)[Lists:]
This issue is covered by orders already issued in G.O.Ms.No.279,Revenue Dt.04.07.2016.Government have ordered that in all casesof assignment of Ex-servicemen in which a period of 10 years hasexpired and there is no dispute on the land with the[Government]shall be deleted from the prohibitorylist under Section22-AofRegistrationAct,1908andfurnishedtotheRegistrationDepartment.
Since the date of assignment stands crucial for reckoning[the][ ten]years period,all assignment pattas made to them shall be digitizedand made available in webland for ready verification.
17. PURCHASERS OF EX-SERVICEMEN ASSIGNED LANDS:
Several applications have beenfiled bythird partieswhohavepurchasedthelands(hithertogiventoex-servicemen)andarerequesting for deletion of such lands from 22-A lists.
In all such cases, the genuinity of the assignment may be ensured. Ifthe assignmentis genuine and the transaction had occurred[ten]years after the assignment, by way of a Registered Sale Deed, thesame may be deleted from 22-A list. The original assignee[need][ not]be consulted. ”
11. From the pleadings of the petitioneritis discernible[that][ this][ Court]earliervideorderdated18.09.2009hasgrantedpermissiontotheearliervideorderdated18.09.2009hasgrantedpermissiontothe
predecessorintitleofthepetitionertotransferthesubjectproperty.Thereafter, two sales have been effected.The proposed sale bythe petitioner would be the third sale.The CCLA (AP), Hyderabad, pursuantto the directions of the Full Bench, has directed the authorities to prepare thelist of properties covered by Clause A to D of Section 22 A (1) (a) of theAct.Pursuant to the directions of the Chief Commissioner, CCl_A, the listsappearto have beenpreparedinahasty manner without makinganyverification.Inthepresentcase,theHighCourthasalreadygrantedpermission to the wife of the assignee to transfer the subject property; theauthorities, did not conduct any enquiry before placing the subject property inthe prohibitory list of properties under Section 22 A (1) (a) of the Act.
12. However, in view of the latest Circular Memo dated 04.05.2022, whereinitisclarified,byreferringtotheearlierG.O.,G.O.Ms.No.279dated04.07.2016, thatinall the cases of assignment of[Ex-servicemen]in whichperiod of 10 years has expired, and where thereis no dispute withtheGovernmentshallbe deleted from thelistof prohibitedproperties,afterensuring the genuineness of the assignment,if the assignment was genuine.andtransactionhadoccurred tenyearsafter the assignment by wayofregistered sale deed, the same may be deleted from Section 22 A (1) (a) ofthe Act, and the original assignee need not be consulted.itisclarified,byreferringtotheearlierG.O.,G.O.Ms.No.279dated04.07.2016, thatinall the cases of assignment of[Ex-servicemen]in whichperiod of 10 years has expired, and where thereis no dispute withtheGovernmentshallbe deleted from thelistof prohibitedproperties,afterensuring the genuineness of the assignment,if the assignment was genuine.andtransactionhadoccurred tenyearsafter the assignment by wayofregistered sale deed, the same may be deleted from Section 22 A (1) (a) ofthe Act, and the original assignee need not be consulted.
13. In view of the said clauses of the Circular Memo,itisnot incumbentupon the authorities to keep the subject land in the prohibited category. Theendorsement of the 4‘^ respondent/Tahsildar is accordingly[set aside.]The2"'* respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders deleting the subject landupon the authorities to keep the subject land in the prohibited category. Theendorsement of the 4‘^ respondent/Tahsildar is accordingly[set aside.]The2"'* respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders deleting the subject land in Ac.5.31 cents in Sy. No.33/5 of Vanka Somida Village,[Mentada][ Mahdal,]fromthelistofprohibitedpropertiesunderVizianagaramDistrictSection 22 A (1)(a)of the Actin termsof the Circular[Memo]dated04.05.2022.
14. With the above observation, the writ petitionis accordingly,allowed.There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, all pending interlocutory applications[shall][ stand][ closed.]
Sd/- J. SAROJA
assistant registrarSECTION OFFICER
//TRUE COPY//
To,
1. The Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh,^Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Rep.[by][ its][ Secretary.]Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Rep.[by][ its][ Secretary.]2. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram.^
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram Division, VizianagaramDistrict.District.
4. The Tahsildar, Mentada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
.
5. The Sub-Registrar, Stamps and Registration, Sub-Registrar[office^]Gajapathinagaram, Vizianagaram District.Gajapathinagaram, Vizianagaram District.
6. One CC to Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC]
^
7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra[Pradesh.][ [OUT]']
8. Two CCs to GP for Stamps and Registration, High[Court][ of][ Andhra].Pradesh. [OUT]Pradesh. [OUT]
9. Three CD Copies.
ssb
HIGH COURT
DATED:31/12/2024
ORDERWP.No.6093 of 2020
^O^ANDTy^x2 'I MAR 2025to..Current Section.
ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS