Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs D Rajeswari on 8 February, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.577 of 2022
Between:
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its
Principal Secretary to Govt., Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati,
Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, and 4 others.
...Appellants
Versus
1. D. Rajeswari W/o. D. Subramanyam Chetty,
R/o. D.No.30.312, Vijhayalakshmi Colony,
Santhapet, Chittoor Town and District,
And 4 others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Government Pleader
for Assignment
Counsel for respondents : Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri
Representing Smt. S. Parineeta
HCJ & RRR, J
2 W.A.No.577 of 2022
Dt.: 08.01.2024
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Learned Government Pleader for Assignment,
appearing for the appellants and Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned
counsel representing Smt. Parineeta, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents.
2. The respondents herein had filed W.P.No.45776 of
2018, being aggrieved by the inclusion of their house plots
situated in Sy.Nos.199/1A and 199/1B of Iruvaram Village,
Chittoor Mandal and District, in the prohibitory list
communicated by the District Collector, Chittoor, to the Sub-
Registrar, Chittoor District, under Section 22-A (1)(a) of the
Registration Act, 1908.
3. The case of the respondents was that an extent of
Ac.5.00 of land in Sy.No.199/1A was the property of Sri
Chengadu and Sri Muniswamy, S/o. Sri Chengadu. They had sold
these lands in the year 1946 by way of registered deed of sale
No.2429/1946 dated 13.06.1946 to one Sri D. Chengadu (an
extent of Ac.2.50 cents) and Smt. Ramakka (an extent of
Ac.2.50 cents) under registered deed of sale No.2430/1946
dated 13.06.1946. Thereafter, these lands were transferred
HCJ & RRR, J
between various persons by way of registered deeds of sale in
1946, 1968 and 1980, till they were all purchased by Sri P.
Gurappa Naidu, on behalf of M/s.APSEB Housing Society, by way
of registered deed of sale dated 07.04.1982.
4. The respondents would submit that the said society,
after purchasing the land and making a layout, had allotted plots
to its members and the respondents are the successors in
interest of the said allottees.
5. The respondents approached this Court contending
that despite the title to the land being traced to registered
documents of the year 1946 the respondent authorities took the
stand that the said land was classified "Anadeenam" and initially
assigned to Sri Chengadu and others in the year 1954-1955.
Thereafter, the said assignment was said to have been cancelled
in 1974, on account of violation of the terms of the assignment
and the land was again assigned to various persons in the year
1987.
6. The respondents contended that the revenue
authorities, except stating that the land had been assigned, had
not produced any material before the learned Single Judge to
demonstrate these facts.
HCJ & RRR, J
7. The learned single Judge, after hearing both sides,
took the view that the registered deeds of sale relied upon by the
respondents showed a continuous thread of possession and
alienation, due to which, the claim of the respondents would
have to be accepted. He took the further view that the revenue
authorities, except making certain assertions, had not produced
any material before him to demonstrate such assertions. On the
basis of these findings, the learned single Judge allowed the writ
petition holding that the inclusion of plots, owned by the
respondents herein in the prohibitory list, is clearly arbitrary
and has to be set aside.
8. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 12.11.2021,
the revenue authorities have filed the present writ appeal.
9. The learned Government Pleader for Assignment has
now placed before this Court certain records to demonstrate that
the land had earlier been assigned to Chengadu in the year 1954;
the assignment had been cancelled in the year 1974; and the
land was reassigned to various persons in the year 1987. The
learned Government Pleader, on the basis of this material placed
before this Court, at the stage of writ appeal, would contend that
the said documentation would amply demonstrate the fact that
the land in question was Government waste land and the same
HCJ & RRR, J
cannot be treated as private patta land, as claimed by the
respondents herein.
10. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel appearing
for Smt. S. Parineeta, learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that the material produced by the revenue authorities, at
this stage, cannot be looked into, as the same does not appear to
be genuine. He would further submit that in any event, none of
the persons, who were said to have been assigned the lands, have
approached this Court and the interim exercise seems to be a
paper exercise only.
11. This Court is now faced with two sets of documents.
In the first set of documents, the respondents have placed
registered deeds of sale going back to the years of 1946 and
1968 and thereon. In the second set of documents, the revenue
authorities have produced the material to show that the land had
been assigned to various persons at various points of time.
12. The registered deeds of sale clearly show that the
land has been treated as private land and has been subjected to
various alienations by way of registered documents, since 1946.
On the other hand, the documents produced by the revenue
authorities show assignment of land from 1954 onwards.
However, in the present case, none of the assignees, to whom the
HCJ & RRR, J
land is said to have been assigned, have appeared before this
Court. Further, the contention of the respondents, that they are
in possession of the said land by way of small plots admeasuring
250, 280 sq. yards, has not really been disputed or denied by the
revenue authorities. This would go to show that the claim of the
respondents that they are able to trace their title and possession
from the year 1946 stands unrebutted.
13. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that
the claim of the respondents to their plots of land, admeasuring
between 250 to 280 sq. yards, ought not to be disturbed
especially in view of the fact that none of the persons to whom
the land is said to have been assigned have bothered to approach
this Court. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with
the order of the learned single Judge.
14. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge is
affirmed and the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
JS
HCJ & RRR, J
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)
8th January, 2024
JS
