Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Inturi Raja Gopal vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 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.338 of 2023
Between:
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Assignment-II) Department,
A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur District, and 3 others.
...Appellants
Versus
G.V.V. Satyanarayana,
S/o. Late Thammi Raju,
R/o. MIG-9, Green Park Colony,
Near Port Stadium, Visakhapatnam.
...Respondents
Counsel for Appellants : G.P. for Assignment
Counsel for respondent : Sri V.V. Satish
Dt.: 26.12.2023
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Learned Government Pleader for Assignment
appearing for the appellants and Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
HCJ & RRR, J
2. The father of the respondent herein had been assigned
an extent of Ac.4.93 cents of land, in Sy.No.134/1 of
Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam, vide D.R. file bearing
No.116/71 dated 23.06.1970. The respondent inherited the said
property after the demise of his father on 13.02.2015. The
respondent is said to have submitted a representation to the
Government contending that the afore said property is wrongly
shown in the prohibited list maintained under Section 22-A of the
Registration Act, 1908 and sought deletion of the property from
the prohibited list. It appears that there were some controversies
as to whether the land was assigned to the father of the
respondent, on the ground that he was a landless poor person or
on the ground that he was an ex-serviceman. In any event, the
Government, after an enquiry in this regard, had issued Memo
No.REV/21021/92/2017-ASSG.II-1, dated 01.05.2018, directing
deletion of the property from the list of prohibitory properties, on
the ground that the land was allotted to the father of the
respondent as an ex-serviceman.
3. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, on receipt of
the said Memo, sought a review of the order dated 01.05.2018 on
various grounds. This application for review was rejected, vide
Memo No.REV/21021/92/2017-ASSG.II-1, dated 31.10.2018.
HCJ & RRR, J
4. The property of the respondent was not removed, from
the prohibitory list, despite rejection of the review sought by the
District Collector. The respondent again represented to the
Government about the said refusal to remove the property from
the prohibitory list and the Government issued Memo dated
12.12.2018, directing the Commissioner and Inspector General,
Stamps and Registration,, to implement the orders dated
01.05.2018 for deletion of the subject land.
5. As the land was not being deleted even after the Memo
dated 12.12.2018, the respondent approached this Court by way
of W.P.No.13329 of 2021.
6. The District Collector filed a counter affidavit stating
that the land was assigned to the father of the respondent but it
was not assigned on the ground that he was an ex-serviceman and
it was assigned by treating the father of the respondent as a
landless poor person. The counter affidavit further stated that the
subject land was handed over to the Visakhapatnam Urban
Development Authority (VUDA), as per the proceedings dated
09.12.2004, under delivery receipt No.1/2005/Sp.R.I., dated
22.01.2005, by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. The
counter also stated that a kutcha road had been formed in the land
HCJ & RRR, J
and a caution board has also been erected by the Visakhapatnam
Urban Development Authority, in this regard.
7. The District Collector also contended, in the counter
affidavit, that the respondent had filed a writ petition bearing
W.P.No.15332 of 2007 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, challenging the dispossession sought to be carried out
against the respondent and his father. This writ petition was
disposed of, on 21.11.2012, with a direction to the Principal
Secretary to the Government, to consider and pass appropriate
orders in the matter in relation to the recommendations of the
District Collector dated 16.01.2011. It is contended that in that
view of the matter, the question of removing the land from the
prohibitory list would not arise, as the respondent would not have
title or possession over the said land. Thereafter, the District
Collector is said to have issued proceedings, dated 22.03.2018
rejecting the application for a No Objection Certificate.
8. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering
the rival submissions, by order dated 22.07.2022, had allowed the
writ petition with exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- against the
respondents 1 to 4 therein and with a further direction to delete
the subject property from the prohibitory list under
Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 forthwith, and to
HCJ & RRR, J
receive and register the documents submitted by the respondent
herein.
9. The learned Government Pleader for Assignment,
would make the following submissions:
a) The learned Judge ought to have taken into account
the fact that the land admeasuring Ac.4.93 cents had already been
taken over by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority
and an extent of Ac.1.07 cents was used for the purpose of laying
an 80 feet road through Sy.No.134/1 of Paradesipalem Village.
Further, the remaining Ac.3.86 cents is also in the possession of
Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority. However, these
facts were not taken into account by the learned Single Judge.
b) The learned Single Judge had passed the orders in the
writ petition, taking into account the above Memo issued by the
Government for deletion of the property from the prohibitory list
and implementation of the said order without taking into account
the further Memo No.REV/21021/92/2017-ASSG.II-1, dated
31.08.2021 wherein the earlier Memos were kept in abeyance.
c) The objections filed by the District Collector, dated
19.06.2018, against the initial order in Memo dated 01.05.2018
would show that the claim of the respondent, through his late
father, is not sufficient to accept the ownership of the respondent
HCJ & RRR, J
over the land and in any event the possession of the land was out
of the hands of the respondent.
10. Learned Government Pleader would contend that on
account of these intervening facts, the leaned Single Judge ought
not to have allowed the writ petition. He would further submit that
an objection had been taken, before the learned Single Judge that
the Memo, dated 31.08.2021, under which the earlier proceedings
were kept in abeyance, had not been challenged and as such no
reliance can be placed on the earlier Memos.
11. Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would contend that the land admeasuring Ac.3.86
cents was still vacant and available, and in any event, the
respondent continues to be in possession of the land and the claim
of the appellants that the respondent is not in possession, is
incorrect.
12. He would further submit that the appellants having
admitted that the land had been assigned to the father of the
respondent, cannot take possession of the land without
cancellation of the assignment made to the father of the
respondent and no such documentation or proceedings have been
placed before this Court. He would submit that the documents
relied upon by the appellants, to claim that the possession had
HCJ & RRR, J
been handed over to the Visakhapatnam Urban Development
Authority, by the Tahsildar, are paper documents which are not
supported by any physical handing over of the possession of the
land.
13. The Memos issued by the Government, after a careful
perusal of the revenue records and other records, are to the effect
that the land admeasuring Ac.4.93 cents was assigned to the
father of the respondent on the ground that he was an ex-
serviceman. The District Collector, except claiming that it was not
assigned as an ex-serviceman patta, has not placed any record
before the Court or before the Government to substantiate his
contention.
14. The objections of the District Collector, to the direction
to delete the property of the respondent from the prohibitory list,
are contained in the letter dated 19.06.2018 sent to the Principal
Secretory, Government of Andhra Pradesh, for review of the
earlier Memo dated 01.05.2018. The objection is essentially on the
ground that the procedure that should have been followed for
grant of patta under the ex-serviceman quota, was not followed.
This objection is raised on the footing that the correspondence and
other material showing that the procedure had been followed, is
not available in the records of the District Collector. Various
HCJ & RRR, J
suspicions are raised on the ground that the D-form patta was
granted to the father of the respondent after a lapse of 9 years
from the date on which he had filed his application in 1961. It is
significant that the District Collector, except raising such
suspicions and conjectures does not dispute the fact that a patta
was issued to the father of the respondent in 1970.
15. The objections raised by the District Collector have
been raised 47 years after the issuance of the patta to the father of
the respondent. The question of raising an objection to the patta
issued to the father of respondent, after such a long lapse of time,
on the basis of conjecture and suspicions, cannot be permitted. It is
settled law that any attempt to an unsettle or reopen settled
issues, on the basis of such conjecture would amount to an
arbitrary exercise of power and has to be set aside.
16. The District Collector, apart from raising various
suspicions about the manner in which the patta has been issued,
also took the ground that the land has been delivered to M/s.VUDA
under delivery receipt dated 01.01.2005. However, this
contention is also belied by the same letter, dated 19.06.2018,
wherein the District Collector states that the land has been kept
vacant on account of the subsequent "status quo" orders. It may
also be noted that the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.15223 of
HCJ & RRR, J
2007, while disposing of the said writ petition on 21.11.2012, also
recorded the fact that Ac.3.86 cents of land is admittedly vacant
even according to the reports of the various officers at different
stages and that the land had been assigned to the father of the
respondent in March, 1970 and his name was recorded as
pattadar in the revenue records since then. The learned Single
Judge, after going into all these issues, had held that it would be in
the interest of justice to concede the request of the respondent for
deletion of his property from the prohibitory list.
17. The learned Government pleader contended, finally,
that since all the earlier memos had been kept in abeyance by the
subsequent Memo dated 31.08.2021 and since the said memo was
not challenged, the question of considering the request of the
respondent for deletion of the property is not sustainable.
18. This objection has been answered by the learned Single
Judge, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kala Bharati Advertising vs. Jemant Vimalnath Narichania and
Ors.,1 holding that review of an earlier order is not permissible
unless specific provision is available and in the present case no
such power is available. Learned Single Judge on this basis, had
(2010) 9 SCC 437
HCJ & RRR, J
held that the said Memo dated 31.08.2021 is without jurisdiction
and nonest in the eye of law.
19. The conduct of the official respondents in the writ
petition clearly shows an overwhelming desire to stop the
respondent herein from enjoying the benefit of the land assigned
to his father and the said conduct has been deprecated by the
learned Single Judge, by awarding exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/-
against each of the respondents. We do not find any reason to
deviate from the said order.
20. In the circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed.
However, it would be open to the respondent to take appropriate
steps, if any, available in law, in relation to the land which has
been utilised for laying a road. 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)
Dt: 26.12.2023
JS
