HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE No.C.C.No.1079 of 2019
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Office
ORDER
No DATE Note 21 05.1.2022 RRR, J
The petitioner, who had purchased Ac.2.74 cents in Sy.No.294/3, Ac.4.34 cents in Sy.No.295/1 and Ac.4.57 cents in Sy.No.294/7A of Gandrajupalle Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, in an auction conducted by the Chittor District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, had approached the respondents for transfer of the land in the revenue records. At that stage, the R.D.O., Madanapalli had issued a notice under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 to show cause why he should not be evicted from the said lands as they were assigned lands. The petitioner had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.6698 of 2008 which was allowed on 01.09.2014 setting aside the said notice.
Subsequently, the petitioner had again approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.30877 of 2018, for consideration of his application for mutation of entries in his favour, in the revenue records and the same had been dismissed as the application of the petitioner had been rejected giving liberty to the petitioner to make fresh application.
Thereafter, the petitioner had again approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.1096 of 2019, for setting aside the earlier order of rejection, and for a direction to the Tahsildar, Gangavaram to take necessary steps for making 2
necessary entries in the revenue records. This writ petition was allowed relying upon the Judgment of this Court in Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District Vs. K.Guruvaiah reported in 2009 (2) ALD 250 (DB), directing the Tahsildar to act on the application in Form 6-A of the petitioner and make necessary entries in the revenue records and issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the above lands in favour of the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the subject properties were originally assigned properties.
The petitioner had again approached this Court, by way of the present contempt case on the ground that the 1st respondent herein had not complied with the directions of this Court.
Sri P.Subash learned counsel, appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 1st respondent was unable to take action on account of the circular issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration directing all the revenue authorities not to change the nature of land, where assigned lands are involved.
In view of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.1096 of 2019, the stand of the 1st respondent that he would be bound by the circular of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, cannot be accepted. The 1st respondent is bound to comply with the directions of this Court.
In the circumstances, Form-I shall issue to the 1st respondent.
Post on 03.02.2022.
________ RRR, J RJS 3 4
