Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Ap vs Kopparla Santhi on 25 September, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010448042023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH 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: 969/2023
Between:
The State Of Ap and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Kopparla Santhi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)
2. P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR
The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The 1st respondent herein, claims title to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of
land in Sy.No.496/1 of Avilala Village of Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor
District, on the basis of a deed of sale, dated 14.02.1990, registered as
document No.569 of 1990 from her vendor one Sri K. Venkataswamy. The
title of Sri K. Venkata Swamy is traced to a DKT patta given to Sri K. Venkata
Swamy, in the year 1986, under the political sufferer category.
2. The 1st respondent, after purchase of the said property had approached
the Registration Authorities, for obtaining a valuation certificate on 16.08.2019.
The 1st respondent then, came to know that this property was kept in the
prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908,
on the ground that, the said land belongs to the Government.
3. Aggrieved by the said fact, the 1st respondent approached the Revenue
Authorities for deleting the said lands from the prohibitory list. This request of
the 1st respondent, was rejected by the District Collector, Chittoor by his
proceedings bearing File No.REV-FSEC0HC/06/2020-JA(F8)REV COL CTR,
dated 08.06.2020.
4. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the 1st respondent approached
this Court by way of W.P.No.16019 of 2020, which was allowed by a learned
Single Judge of this Court, by a judgment, dated 28.07.2021.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Writ Appeal has been filed
by the respondents in the Writ Petition.
6. The case of the 1st respondent is that, the land had been assigned to
her vendor, in the year 1986, and that, she had purchased the property from
her vendor, in the year 1990, in as much as there is no restriction on
alienation of assigned lands, by political sufferers. She further contends that
the land cannot be treated as Government land by any stretch of imagination.
7. The revenue authorities have taken the stand that this land was
originally assigned, in the year 1954, to one Smt. T. Lakshmamma and was
subsequently, resumed from her only in the year 2006, by way of proceedings,
dated 09.02.2006. The revenue authorities contend that, in such a situation,
the question of assignment of the very same land to another person in the
year, 1986 is not possible and consequently, such an assignment would have
to be treated as non-est.
8. In reply to this contention, the 1st respondent had produced documents,
which show that the original assignee, namely Smt. T. Lakshmamma, had
approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, expressing her willingness to
relinquish the land assigned to her as she was unable to bring the land under
cultivation. The 1st respondent has also filed the proceedings of the Mandal
Revenue Officer, dated 19.09.1985, in which, the request of
Smt. T. Lakshmamma, is said to have been accepted and where the
relinquishment of the land was also accepted.
9. It is on the basis of these facts, that the learned Single Judge had
allowed the Writ Petition, directing deletion of the land of the 1st respondent
from the prohibitory list.
10. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the
appellants, would contend that the resumption proceedings, dated
09.02.2006, makes it apparent that the land was not in use and consequently,
resumption proceedings had been initiated as there was a violation of the
patta condition of bringing the land into cultivation at the earliest.
11. He would further submit that, the record demonstrates that
Smt. T. Lakshmamma, had actually sold the land to Sri Y. Chengalrayulu by
way of an unregistered deed of sale and this fact was also taken into
consideration for resuming the land.
12. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that the above
facts clearly demonstrate that, it was Smt. T. Lakshmamma and
Sri Y. Chengalrayulu, who were in possession of the land and the case of the
1st respondent cannot be accepted.
13. Sri P.R.K. Amerandra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent would contend to the contrary, he contends that the order of
resumption, dated 09.02.2006, has been passed without reference to the
earlier proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 19.09.1985,
accepting the relinquishment of the land from Smt. T. Lakshmamma.
14. He further contends that the revenue authorities do not dispute the fact
that the patta given to Sri K. Venkataswamy is genuine. The entire case being
projected by the revenue authorities is based on probabilities and the same
cannot be the basis to take away the property belonging to the 1st respondent.
15. The record placed before this Court as well as the pleadings would
show that the revenue authorities have not disputed the fact that a patta had
been granted to Sri K. Venkataswamy. This patta is sought to be discredited,
on the ground that, the land had earlier been assigned to
Smt. T. Lakshmamma, and had only been resumed in the year 2006, which
improbablizes any assignment of land to any other person during this period.
16. In view of the clear findings of the fact by the learned Single Judge, that
the land in question had been taken back by the State, by accepting
relinquishment proposals of Smt. T. Lakshmamma, in the year 1985 itself, the
resumption proceedings of 09.02.2006, were redundant as the land had
already vested with the State and had also been assigned again to Sri K.
Venkataswamy.
17. In such a situation, we do not find any reason to differ with the findings
of the learned Single Judge and must hold that the endorsement of the District
Collector refusing to delete the land of the petitioner from the prohibitory list
would have to be set aside.
18. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________
HARINATH.N, J
Date:25.09.2024
KPV
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO:969 of 2023
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
25.09.2024
KPV
