Prl. Secretary . Revenue Dept., ... vs Thirri Naga Ramana, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1700 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                    &
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                             I.A.No.1 of 2021

                                 IN/AND

                   WRIT APPEAL No.1388 of 2017

                   (Taken up through video conferencing)

State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep.by its Prl. Secretary (Revenue)
Secretariat, Hyderabad
and another.                                       ..   Appellants

                                  Versus

Thirri Naga Ramana
S/o. Thirri Appala Naidu,
Aged 39 years, Occ:Business,
r/o.D.No.3-6-72, Bojanna Konda,
Gajuwaka, Gajuwaka Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District and 2 others.               ..   Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.P.Subhash, G.P. for Assignment

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1&2 : Ms.K.Aruna

Counsel for Respondent No.3 : ----

ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23.03.2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr.P.Subhash, learned Government Pleader for

Revenue (Assignment) appearing for the appellants. Also heard

Ms.K.Aruna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ

petitioners.

2) I.A.No.1 of 2021 is an application for condonation of delay

of 472 days in filing the connected writ appeal against the order of

learned single Judge dated 28.04.2016 passed in W.P.No.26489 of

2015.

3) Paragraph Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 of the order of the learned single

Judge read as follows:

"2. An extent of Ac.5.20 cts in Sy.No.354/3 of

Maredipudi village, Ankapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District

was assigned by the then Tahsildar in D.R.No.200/78 on

08.04.1969 to one D.Somulu, an exserviceman and

possession was also delivered to him. In the year 1984, he

sold away the entire extent in favour of one Shaik

Azeemuddin and six others under separate sale deeds. Thus,

the land ceased to be assigned land.

3. Petitioners contend that Shaik Azeemuddin and

others offered to sell an extent of Ac.3.20 cts in Sy.

No.354/3 to them and an agreement 23-03-2015 was

entered into by them with the petitioners. Petitioners

contend that they approached the Tahsildar, Ankapalli and

requested to clarify the genuineness of patta of the land

issued in favour of D.Somulu and he also clarified that the

patta, which was issued under the ex-serviceman quota to

D.Somulu in 1969, is genuine. Petitioners contend that as

per G.O.Ms.No.1117 Revenue (Assignment-I) dept

dt.11.11.1993, an ex-serviceman who was assigned land

was entitled to alienate the land after completion of ten

years period from the date of assignment. Petitioners

contend that the ten year period, as far as the original

assignee D.Somulu is concerned, ended on 07.04.1979 and

only thereafter, he sold the extent of Ac.5.20 cts assigned to

him to Shaik Azeemuddin and others on 15.05.1984.

Petitioners contend that they have presented the agreement

of sale entered into by them with Shaik Azeemuddin and

others for registration before 2nd respondent, but he refused

to entertain the same stating that the land is Government

land and he is insisting on petitioners to produce of No

Objection Certificate from the respondents. They contend

that this is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993.

4. Petitioners contend that the action of 2nd respondent

in not receiving and registering document in favour of the

petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the said G.O.

They also placed reliance on the judgment dt.03.02.2009 in

W.P.No.21325 of 2007 and judgment dt.07.12.2010 in

W.P.No.30568 of 2010 wherein this Court has held that

there is no bar to alienate the land assigned to ex-

serviceman after expiry of period of ten years prescribed as

per G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993.

5. Counter affidavit is filed by 3rd respondent admitting

that there was an assignment in favour of Sri D.Somulu in

1969 but contending that it was done under landless poor

category and not ex-service man category. It is also alleged

that an extent of Ac.2.20 cts of the land assigned to

D.Somulu was taken over by the Housing Department under

Indiramma Housing Phase III, but no material in support of

this plea is filed. It is also stated that the petitioners should

prove that the original assignee is an ex-serviceman and

that he applied for assignment of land under ex-serviceman

quota. The 3rd respondent also pleaded that the land is

vacant on the ground, that there are no traces of cultivation

and in any event petitioners have not purchased the land

from the original assignee or his family members. It is also

stated that the subject lands are government lands and they

would be placed under Section 22-A of the Registration

Act,1908 after verification and therefore 3rd respondent has

not issued No Objection Certificate to the petitioner.

Reference is also made to G.O.Ms.No.307 dt.06.06.2013

stating that the District Collector is competent for issuance

of No Objection Certificate in respect of lands after valuation

of Rs.50.00 lakhs and that thereafter only the Government

is competent to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of

ex-serviceman assigned lands."

4) The learned single Judge opined that in view of certification

given by the 2nd respondent, the assignee D.Somulu is an Ex-

serviceman and that Ex-serviceman was permitted to sell away the

assigned land after a period of ten years from the date of assignment

and once transaction takes place, such land cease to be Government

land and it becomes private property.

5) In the background of the above facts, the learned single

Judge directed the respondents to receive the documents presented

by the petitioners in respect of the land in question.

6) In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that

after receipt of the judgment, the authorities had undertaken an

enquiry and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the Collector on

15.12.2016, stating that the land was not assigned under Ex-

servicemen quota and that accordingly, the appeal came to be filed on

08.08.2017.

7) We are not satisfied with the cause shown for delay. If at all

any such enquiry was to be done, the same was required to be done

earlier and not after judgment was delivered in the writ petition. The

appellants did not produce any documents in support of their

contention before the learned single Judge. If land was not assigned

under Ex-servicemen category, but under landless poor category, the

authorities could have very well placed the same before the learned

single Judge.

8) In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to

condone the delay and accordingly, the I.A., to condone the delay, is

dismissed.

9) Resultantly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                           C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

                                                                           GM