Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
1.The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Bhupatiraju Sambhasiva Raju, on 5 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No. 567 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Stamps of Registration,
A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Guntur District and others. .....Appellants
Versus
Bhupatiraju Sambhasiva Raju,
S/o.Satyanarayana Raju, aged about 57 years,
Business, R/o.Plot No.104, B-Block,
KSR Complex, Seethammadhara,
Visakhapatnam. .... Respondent
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Syed Khader Masthan,
Government Pleader
Counsel for the respondent : P. Rajasekhar
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt.05.10.2021
(Per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, learned Government Pleader attached
to the office of the learned Advocate General, appearing for the appellants. Also
heard Mr. P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.
2. The writ appeal is presented against an order dated 06.01.2021 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.197 of 2021. Operative portion of the said
order reads as follows:
"Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
respondents 2 and 3 to delete the subject land from the
prohibited property list as expeditiously as possible but not
later than six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order and on such deletion, 4th respondent is directed
to receive and register the documents presented by the
petitioner in respect of the land an extent of Ac.4.70 cents in
Survey No.56/11 situated at Chodapalli Village,
Atchuthapuram Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. If the
same is in accordance with the provisions of the Registration
Act, 1908, and the rules made thereunder and release the
same as per law within one (1) week from the date of
presentation of the document."
3. It is submitted by the petitioner that he purchased the subject property from
an Ex-serviceman, who was assigned the said land under Ex-servicemen quota
and his name, accordingly, was recorded. He intended to dispose of the property
and, accordingly, he had presented the deed of conveyance before the Joint
Sub-Registrar, Yelamanchili, who refused to receive the document holding that
the land is government land and therefore, no alienation in respect of the said
property is permissible.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had instituted W.P. No.77 of 2014 in
the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, and the same
was disposed of vide order dated 31.01.2014, recording as follows:
"4. In view of the policy of Government notified in
G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993, there is no restriction
with regard to the alienation of the land assigned to ex-
servicemen after completion of ten years. Therefore, the
petitioner has validly acquired the title consequent to
purchase of the land in the year 2001 and is entitled to
alienate the land as per his wishes.
5. Having regard to the above facts, the writ petition is
disposed of, directing the Joint Sub-Registrar, Yelamanchili
(3rd respondent) to receive and process the conveyance
deed in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.4-70 cents in
Sy.No.56/11 of Chodapalli Village of Atchutapuram Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District as and when the same is presented
and process the same in accordance with the provisions of
the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
If however, the 3rd respondent is of the opinion that the
document presented for registration warrants denial, he shall
pass orders in writing indicating the reasons for such refusal
and communicate the same to the party in accordance with
Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. No order as to
costs."
5. As the appellants did not de-notify the land from the prohibited property list
under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908, the petitioner had again
approached this Court by filing W.P.No.197 of 2021, out of which, this writ appeal
arises. On consideration of the materials on record, including the order passed in
W.P.No.77 of 2014, the learned Single Judge had issued the directions as
indicated above.
6. Mr. Syed Khader Masthan submits that the vendor of the petitioner was
assigned the land after cut-off date, which is 01.07.1952 in terms of
B.S.O.No.15(2). He also submitted that the appellants were denied opportunity of
presenting the case before the learned Single Judge as the case was disposed
of on 06.01.2021, after the same was filed on 05.01.2021 thereby substantiating
his argument that no opportunity was given to the appellants.
7. It is, however, important to note that that the order dated 31.01.2014
passed by this Court in W.P.No.77 of 2014 having not been assailed by the
State, it has attained finality and therefore, the matter cannot be re-opened in a
subsequent proceeding.
8. Therefore, in the present case, though an opportunity was not granted, we
are of the considered opinion that no prejudice is caused to the appellants in
view of the fact that the judgment, on which the learned Single Judge relied on,
had attained finality.
9. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the order
under challenge and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
BLV
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.567 of 2021
5th day of October, 2021
BLV
