Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Danthaluri Achutha Rama Raju, on 23 September, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010150082019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 162/2019
Between:
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Danthaluri Achutha Rama Raju ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
2. P DURGA PRASAD
The Court made the following Judgment:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
An extent of Ac.2.38 cents of land in Survey No.118, of Vandram
Village, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District is said to have been assigned to
one Syed Mustaq Hussain under Ex-Service Man quota, by way of
proceedings in R.Dis.No.D1/9/LD/76 dated 11.07.1967. This land was kept in
the prohibitory list under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 on
Contd...
the ground that the said land was assigned land which was in the possession
of the private respondent, and the same was not permissible.
2. The private respondent, being aggrieved by the inclusion of his
land, in the prohibitory list, approached this Court by way of W.P No.45742 of
2018, contending that he is the owner of the land and that placing this land in
the prohibitory list is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 22-A of
the Registration Act.
3. The private respondent had also contended that the land had
been alienated by the original assignee, in favour of one Smt.
T.Mahankalamma, who in turn sold the same to the private respondent, by
way of registered deed of sale, dated 29.06.2012, registered as Document
No.1458 of 2012 and that this sale was made after Smt. T.Mahakalamma had
obtained NOC from the Joint Collector who had issued an endorsement dated
23.06.2012 stating that the land could be alienated ten (10) years after date of
assignment and as such there was no objection for execution of the deed of
sale.
4. It was the case of the appellant authorities that though the land
had been alienated to the Ex-Service Man in the year 1967, a lease had been
executed by the Ex-Service Man in the year 1968 itself and as such the
transfer of land by way of a lease is violative of the stipulation, that land
assigned under Ex-Service Man quota, cannot be alienated in any manner for
a period of ten (10) years from the date of assignment.
Contd...
5. A learned Single Judge, of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, allowed
the writ petition on 17.08.2018 holding that as there was no cancellation of the
assignment, given in favour of the Ex-Service Man, the land cannot be kept
under the prohibitory list under Section 22A of Registration Act, 1908.
6. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent authorities in the
writ petition have filed the present appeal.
7. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, would show
that the question of alienation by lease etc., does not appeared to have been
raised and the writ petition had been disposed of, even before any counter
had been filed.
8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the land assigned to an
Ex-Service man, can be alienated by the Ex-Service Man, any time after ten
(10) years from the date of assignment. In the present case, it is an admitted
fact that the assignment took place in the year 1967 and the period of
prohibition would end in 1977.
9. Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, which was relied upon
by the appellants, reads as follows:
"22A.Prohibition of Registration of certain documents:-
(1)The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from
registration, namely:-
(a) documents relating to transfer of immovable property, the
alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of
the State or Central Government..."
Contd...
This provision would apply to documents relating to transfer of immovable
property which is prohibited by any statute of the State.
10. In the present case, the statute, at best would be a prohibition up
to 1977. In such circumstances, this provision would not apply beyond 1977
and as such no property which can be alienated after 1977, by the assignee,
can be included in the prohibitory list. Further, assignment to the Ex-Service
Man had not been cancelled and as such the provision would not apply.
11. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the
learned Single Judge and the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand
closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Date:23.09.2024
Ksj
