Kopparla Santhi vs State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 2886 AP

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITION No.16019 OF 2020

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, seeking the following relief:

".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declare the endorsement of 2nd respondent in file No. REV.FSECOC/6/2020-JA(F8)REV.COLCTR, dated 08.06.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 consequently direct the respondents to delete the land situated in Sy.No. 496/1 an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents of Avilala Village of Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and pass such other orders...."

The case of the petitioner in brief is that she is the owner and

possessor of the land in Sy.No. 496/1 an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents of

Avilala Village of Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. Originally

the land was assigned in favour of one Kothapalli Venkataswamy

under political sufferer quota vide DKT Patta No. 23a/4/1396, dated

12.10.1986 in an extent of Ac. 4.54 cents in R.S.No. 5/2 an extent of

Ac. 2.04 cents and Rs. 496/1 an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents of Avilala

Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal. The said Venktaswamy sold the

subject land to the petitioner and remaining land to third party. Prior

to alienation, the said K. Venkata Swamy made an application dated

19.09.1989 to 3rd respondent with a request to furnish the

information for the purpose of alienation of the assigned land in

favour of third parties. Accordingly the 3rd respondent informed by a

letter in L.Dis.No.B.627/89, dated 30.12.1989 to the 4th respondent

stating that the subject land may be alienated to third parties, based

on letter, the petitioner purchased the land.

While the matter stood thus, the Government of A.P acquired

part of assigned land for establishment of Chittoor District Dairy

Development Corporation Unit No.2 and that they acquired the land

in an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents in R.S.No.5/2 from K. Venkataswamy

and an extent of Ac. 1.54 cents in R.S.No.5/2 from Sanjeev Chetty,

passed an Award No.1/1993, dated 19.04.1993 and paid

compensation to them.

The petitioner made an application, dated 16.08.2019,

requesting to furnish market value certificate for the land to the 4th

respondent, who informed vide proceedings, dated 19.08.2019, that

as per the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 20.10.2019, the

land belongs to Government. Thereafter the petitioner made an

application dated 09.09.2019 to the 2nd respondent for

de-notification, submitted all relevant records and same is pending.

Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17327 of 2019 and same is

disposed of by an order, dated 28.01.2020 and this Court directed the

respondents to dispose of the representation within one month.

Accordingly the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner, dated

07.02.2020, directing the petitioner to appear before him on

06.03.2020 and he appeared and submitted all relevant documents.

But the 2nd respondent, without considering the documents of the

petitioner, passed an endorsement dated 08.06.2020 and refused to

delete the subject land from the prohibited property list which is

illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act.

The 3rd respondent filed detailed counter denying all material

allegations, inter alia contending that originally the land in an extent

of Ac. 2.50 cents in Sy.No.496/1 of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural

Mandal was assigned in favour of one Smt. Thirapathur Lakshmi, vide

DR No. 93/64, dated 25.09.1954. The said Smt. Thirapthur Lakshmi

sold away the land to one Y. Chengalrayudu S/o Gopalaiah of Desuri

Kandriga, Ramachandrapuram Mandal under unregistered Sale Deed

dated 12.01.1970. On coming to know about the proceedings in R.Dis

(D)1184/2005, dated 09.02.2006 and resumed the land to the

Government under Section 4(1)(a) of A.P.Assigned Lands (POT) Act 9

of 1977 on 10.02.2006. Subsequent to the resumption order, an

extent of Ac. 0.72 cents has been set apart from the subject land and

de-noted as Sy.No.496/1B for formation of 150 ft., width bypass road

from Chandragiri - Renigunta and black top road was laid and the

same was implemented in the village accounts.

It is further contended that the balance extent was de-noted as

Sy.No. 496/1A1 in an extent of Ac. 0.60 cents and Sy.No. 496/1A2 in

an extent of Ac. 0.20 cents assigned, on payment of market value to

the journalists, Sy.No. 496/1C in an extent of Ac. 0.98 cents is

classified as „AWD‟ and possession was handed over to the District

Manager, A.P.State Housing Corporation, dated 08.06.2021, since

then the land is vested with of the Housing Department, A.P. Housing

Board is in possession of the land.

It is also further contended that the land acquisition

proceedings for establishment of Balaji Diary in an extent of Ac. 2.04

cents in Sy.No.5/2 of Avilala Village alone was covered in the Award

No. 1/93, dated 19.04.1993. In the said Award proceedings, subject

land in Sy.No. 496/1 was not covered.

While initiation of the land acquisition proceedings, necessary

notices were served on the parties concerned including the owners of

the residential house and compensation was awarded in favour of the

eligible owners. The respondents denied the contentions of this

petitioner that he became the owner of the property and inclusion of

the property in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act, in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this court is

denied. Finally based on material on record, it is contended that the

respondents also denied the alleged assignment in favour of K.

Venkataswamy and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

The 4th respondent also filed separate counter stating that the

subject matter of the land is notified under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act by the competent authority and sent proceedings vide

Roc.F7/4495/2013, dated 20.10.2018, pursuant to the Full Bench

Judgment of this Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopalachari Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh1. The District Collector, Chittoor vide letter No.

Roc.F7/4495/2013, dated 20.10.2018, while communicating a list of

Government lands, requested this respondent not to entertain the

registrations in respect of the properties mentioned in the said list.

The land in Sy.No.496/1 an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents each situated in

Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District is one such

property included in the prohibited property list.

It is also further contended that Section 3 of A.P. Assigned

Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, clearly mandates that

where before or after the commencement of the Act, any land has

been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for the

purpose of cultivation or as a house site, shall not be transferred and

even if any such transfer is made, that transaction shall be deemed to

be null and void. As per the amended Section 22-A(1)(a) of the

Registration Act and also Section 5 of Act 9 of 1977, transfer is

2016(1) ALT 550

prohibited. In view of the above, Kopparla Santhi, who is petitioner

herein sought for market value of the subject property, this

respondent issued a letter dated 19.08.2019 and came to know about

notifying the subject property in the prohibited property list under

Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Therefore, the action of the 4th

respondent is in accordance with law and requested to dismiss the

writ petition.

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

contentions as urged in the writ petition, while placing bunch of

documents as additional material papers and requested to issue a

direction as claimed in the writ petition.

Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

submitted that the land in dispute is not an assigned land to one

Venkataswamy and it was assigned to Thirapattur Lakshmi, who

violated the terms and conditions of the patta and that the land was

resumed to the Government under Section 4(1)(a) of A.P. Assigned

Lands (POT) Act, 9/77, dated 10.02.2006 and now it is part of the

land covered by road and part of the land was handed over to the

District Manager, A.P.State Housing Corporation and same is now in

their custody. Thereby, the order impugned cannot be said to be

illegal and requested to dismiss the writ petition. Thereby inclusion of

the land in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act is not illegal and arbitrary.

The main contention of the petitioner is that the land was

purchased by the petitioner under a Registered Sale Deed dated

14.02.1990 and the property was originally assigned to

Venkataswamy under political suffers quota by the then Mandal

Revenue Officer vide Patta No. 23A/4/1396, dated 12.10.1986 and

informed about the same to the 4th respondent vide letter 30.12.1989

vide L.Dis.No.B.627/89.

However, at the time of registration of the document in favour of

this petitioner, no objection was raised, but when the petitioner

intended to sell the property, an objection is raised on the ground that

the land is included in the prohibited property list. The main

endeavour of the petitioner is to establish that the land was assigned

to K. Venkataswamy, he sold the same and sale is not prohibited by

provisions of A.P.Act 9 of 1977, thereby keeping the land under

prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act is

illegal.

To substantiate the contentions of the petitioner, he placed on

record bunch of documents and proceedings of the Mandal Revenue

Officer dated 19.09.1985 certifying that one Pavani Kumari, A.

Kannaiah Naidu and T. Lakshmamma were granted D-Form patta by

the then Tahsildar, Chandragiri, but they never brought the land

under cultivation, since the date of granting pattas to them and they

have expressed their willingness to relinquish the land and the

relinquishment proposals are submitted by R.I are accepted.

Therefore, these proceedings would show that one Thirapattur

Lakshmi relinquished her right in D-Form Patta in an extent of Ac.

2.50 cents in S.No.496/1 vide D.K.T.No.93/64, dated 25.04.1954 and

the remarks column it is noted that violation of 2(1) Darakasthu

Rules. Thereby cancelled the patta granted in her favour, but it was

not the contention of the respondent/ Tahsildar that she herself

relinquished or violated the conditions of the patta. But her children,

after her death sold the property in violation of terms and conditions

of the patta and thereby cancelled the patta in the year 1986 vide

proceedings dated 09.02.2006. In view of the proceedings dated

09.09.1985 question of again cancelling the patta by the Tahsildar,

granted in favour of Thirapattur Lakshmi does not arise. Once she

relinquished her right in the property due to her inability to reclaim

the property i.e failure to bring the property under cultivation,

cancelled her patta on account of relinquishment, the subsequent

cancellation for violation of terms and conditions i.e sale of the

property by her children is totally absurd and same is contrary to the

earlier order of relinquishment dated 19.09.1985. The order of the

Revenue Department is also placed on record and this was issued by

Mandal Revenue Officer, which clinchingly established that patta

granted in favour of Thirapattur Lakshmi was cancelled on account of

her relinquishment. Thereafter, the land was assigned in favour of

one K. Venkataswamy under political suffer quota, who sold the same

as per proceedings dated 22.10.2018.

Apart from that the land acquisition proceedings were issued,

but acquired part of the land in Sy.No.5/2 an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents

covered by the same patta out of Ac. 2.04 cents. The proceedings of

land acquisition vide Roc.F/3295/92, dated 03.05.2003 is also placed

on record to substantiate the contentions of the petitioner that the

patta was cancelled in favour of K. Venkataswamy, which is a part of

the land covered by Sy.No. 5/2. Therefore, the material available on

record clinchingly established that said K. Venkataswamy was

assigned an extent of Ac. 4.54 cents in Sy.No. 496/1 (Ac. 2.50 cents)

and Sy.No. 5/2 (Ac. 2.04 cents) out of Ac. 2.04 cents in Sy.No.5/2. An

extent of Ac. 0.50 cents was acquired and paid compensation to said

K. Venkataswamy and passed Award is another strong circumstances

to believe the patta granted in favour of Venkataswamy.

The petitioner acquired the land in Sy.No. 496/1 to an extent of

Ac. 0.50 cents in Avilala village, when the patta granted in favour of

Venkataswamy is subsisting and the sale in favour of this petitioner is

to be accepted and accordingly assignment of the property to

Venkataswamy is true and genuine.

When the land was assigned to Venkataswamy under political

suffers quota by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati dated

12.10.1986, there is no restriction on alienation of the property and

thereby the sale of the property assigned to political suffer is not

prohibited. Therefore, inclusion of the land or notifying the land

under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act is against the law,

since the restrictions under the A.P.Act 9 of 1977 have no application

and thereby question of prohibiting alienation by the District Collector

on the ground that it is an assigned land is contrary to the law.

Hence, I find that the petitioner became the owner of the

property by purchase under a Registered Sale Deed dated 14.02.1990

and entitled to deal with the property, since the provisions of the A.P.

Act 9 of 1977 have no application to such land.

Accordingly, I hold that the land purchased by this petitioner in

Sy.No. 496/1 in an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents notified in the prohibited

property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act is illegal and

arbitrary and consequently directed the 2nd respondent/ District

Collector to de-notify or recommend de-notification to the

Government, the property from the prohibited property list under

Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act within a period of eight (08)

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such

deletion, the 4th respondent/ Sub Registrar is directed to receive,

register and release the document presented by the petitioner for

registration in accordance with law.

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 28.07.2021

KK

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION No.16019 OF 2020

Date: 28.07.2021

KK