Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The District Collector, vs G.Sreedhar Kumar Reddy, on 4 November, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
1
RRR,J & MRK,J
W.A.No.1960/2017
APHC010863442015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3508]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1960/2017
Between:
The District Collector, and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
G Sreedhar Kumar Reddy ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY
The Court made the following Judgment:
(Per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard the learned Special Government Pleader in the office of the
learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants and Sri V. Roopesh
Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The respondent, claiming ownership over an extent of Ac.9.73
cents of land in various survey numbers of Thotiguntapalli Village,
RRR,J & MRK,J
Valmikipuram Mandal, Chittoor District, had approached this Court by way of
W.P.No.1820 of 2012, being aggrieved by the inaction of the Tahsildar,
Valmikipuram Mandal, in mutating his name in respect of the said land.
3. The revenue authorities took the stand that the said land was an
assigned land, within the meaning of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of
Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short „the Act‟), which could not have been alienated,
and as such the application of the petitioner for mutating this land, on the
basis of the purchase of land by him, cannot be accepted.
4. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, after considering the entire record placed before him and the
pleadings, had held that the said land cannot be treated as assigned land
falling within the ambit of the Act. The learned Single Judge had held that only
such lands, which were assigned with a condition of absolute non-alienation,
would fall within the ambit of the Act and since such a condition would not be
available to land assigned prior to 18.06.1954, any subsequent alienation of
land cannot be prohibited, nor can the revenue authorities refuse to mutate
necessary entries in the revenue record on the basis of subsequent
purchases.
5. Aggrieved by this order dated 13.09.2013, the present writ appeal
has been come to be filed.
6. It is now settled law that the land, which is granted with a
condition of absolute non-alienation, would fall within the ambit of "assigned
RRR,J & MRK,J
land" covered by the Act. Such a condition of absolute non-alienation, in
relation to the land assigned by the Government, came to be incorporated
only from 18.06.1954, by way of G.O.Ms.No.1142. This would mean that any
land assigned prior to this date would not fall within the meaning of assigned
land and as such any alienation of such land cannot be prohibited nor can the
revenue authorities refuse to carry out necessary entries on the basis of
subsequent alienation of such land.
7. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge 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.
_______________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J
_______________________________
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Js.
RRR,J & MRK,J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
And
HON'BLE SRI MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
4th November, 2024
Js.
