Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Konala Ammi Reddy on 9 January, 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.642 of 2022
Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (ASSn.I) Department,
A.P. Secretariat, Vaelagapudi,
Guntur District and 4 others
...Appellants
Versus
Konala Ammi Reddy
R/o. G. Mamidda, Pedapudi Mandal,
Kakinada District and another.
...Respondents
Counsel for Appellants : Additional Advocate General
Counsel for respondents : Sri N. Siva Reddy
Dt.: 09.01.2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri B. Sasibhushan Rao, for the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the appellants and Sri N. Siva Reddy,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
HCJ & RRR, J
2. An extent of Ac.4.50 cents of land in Sy.No.483/9A of
Venkannapalem village, Chodavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam
District, was assigned to one B. Simhachalam in the year 1961.
After his demise in 1962, the land devolved on his two daughters,
who had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The
daughters of late Sri B. Simhachalam had subsequently made an
application to the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking permission
for sale of the said land on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated
11.11.1993.
3. As the No Objection Certificate, for selling the land, was
not being given by the revenue authorities, the daughters of late
Sri B. Simhachalam filed W.P.No.25984 of 2012 seeking a
direction to the officials to grant NOC for alienation of the said
land. This writ petition was disposed of on 22.08.2012 leaving it
open to the petitioners to exercise their rights over the land.
Thereafter, there were certain communications between the
revenue authorities regarding this matter during which the
daughters of late Sri B. Simhachalam sold the land to the
petitioners through a registered deed of sale dated 17.09.2012.
The petitioners, who were put in possession of the land under the
said deed of sale, also obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds
HCJ & RRR, J
in respect of the said land and their names were mutated in the
revenue records.
4. After some time, the petitioners decided to sell away
this land and approached the 5th respondent-Sub-Registrar to
ascertain the market value of the land. However, the petitioners
were informed that the said land was included in the prohibited
properties list, under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908
and as such no transactions would be permissible in respect of the
subject land. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in
including the subject land in the prohibited list, the petitioners
have approached this Court by way of W.P.No.12158 of 2016.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that the afore said land
was assigned to late Sri B. Simhachalam under the ex-serviceman
category and the said land is alienable after a period of 10 years,
as provided in G.O.Ms.No.1117, Revenue (Assn.I) Department,
dated 11.11.1993, as also the orders of the learned Single Judge,
dated 05.02.2020, in W.P.No.2089 of 2020. The learned Single
Judge, after considering the submissions made on either side,
disposed of the writ petition by order dated 16.03.2021 holding
that no NOC is required for sale of land of ex-servicemen. However,
since the petitioners had already made a representation dated
03.07.2020 a direction was issued to the District Collector to take
HCJ & RRR, J
steps forthwith to complete the process for issuing NOC to enable
the petitioners to execute necessary registered deeds of sale.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the State of A.P. and the
Revenue Authorities, arrayed as respondents in the writ petition,
have preferred the present writ appeal.
7. Sri B. Sesibhushan Rao, learned Special Government
Pleader in the office of the Additional Advocate General, appearing
for the appellants/respondents in the writ petition, would submit
that the assignment of the land in favour of late Sri B.
Simhachalam cannot be treated as an assignment under ex-
serviceman category and would have to be treated as an allotment
under the landless poor category. He would submit that
G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.1.1993, relied upon by the
appellants/respondents in the writ petition, is not applicable to the
present case as the said Government Order had been issued in
favour of the ex-servicemen, who had participated in the defence
of the country, during the Chinese aggression, in the year 1963.
He would also submit that the land in question would have to be
treated as an assigned land under the provisions of the Board
Standing Order 15 and as such would have to be included in the
list of prohibited properties as there can be no alienation of the
land by the assignees.
HCJ & RRR, J
8. Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/writ petitioners would point out to the amendment to
the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977
wherein Section 2(1) of the said Act had been amended by Act,
35/2023 to permit alienation of house sites in a period of 10 years
from the date of assignment and alienation of agricultural lands
within a period of 20 years from the date of assignment. In the
present case, the assignment is said to have been done in the year
1962, and as such, alienation of the property at this stage is
permissible, and accordingly, the land cannot be kept in the
prohibited register.
9. It may be pointed out that while G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated
11.11.21993 read with G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963 are
applicable to Jawans, who served from the date of declaration of
emergency due to Chinese aggression, the relaxation granted
under G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016, cited before the learned
Single Judge, clearly states that the Government had directed that
the procedure of issuing NOC will be dispensed with and there
would have no need to obtain NOC in all cases of ex-servicemen
and freedom fighters. In such circumstances, the provisions of
G.O.Ms.No.279 dated 04.07.2016 would also be applicable and
HCJ & RRR, J
would relieve the respondents/writ petitioners from the burden of
obtaining NOC from the revenue authorities.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, this 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)
9th January 2024
JS
