K.Man Mohan Reddy, vs The Dist.Collector, Adilabad 2 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5767 Tel

               *HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

                        +WRIT PETITION No.13267 OF 2013

% Dated 11.11.2022
Between:

# K. Man Mohan Reddy                                               ...Petitioner

                                            and

$ The District Collector,
  Adilabad district and others.

                                                                    .... Respondents


! Counsel for the petitioner                   :   Avinash Desai
                                                   Represented by the learned Senior
                                                   Counsel Sri D.Prakash Reddy
^ Counsel for the respondents                  :   Govt.Pleader for Revenue

< GIST                                         :   ---

>HEAD NOTE                                     :   ---

? Cases referred:                          :
1. (MANU/AP/0353/2008) = 2008(5) ALD 626, 2008(5) ALT 313
2. 2001 SCC Online AP 682 = (2001) 5 ALD 766, (2001) 6 ALT 128
3. MANU/AP/0355/2011
                                                                       NVSK, J
                                    2                          W.P. No.13267 of 2013




       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

                        W.P. No.13267 of 2013

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus

declaring the Memo No.E3/4815/2012, dated 01.04.2013 issued by

the 1st respondent, District Collector, holding that the subject patta

land of the petitioner in Sy.No.49 to an extent of Acs.11.23 cents

(Acs.11.09 guntas), situated at Battisawargaon village, Adilabad

Mandal and District, as arbitrary and illegal.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and

possessor of the subject land vide patta No.193 issued under the

A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971. It is submitted

that originally the land in Sy.No.49 to an extent of Acs.13.09 guntas

was in occupation of one Mr.Neerati Chinna Ganga, who is pattedar

since 1953. The petitioner purchased the subject land through

registered sale deed vide document No.94/1971 dated 16.02.1971

from Mr.Neerati Chinna Ganga. Out of total subject land,

the petitioner, after obtaining layout approval from the Gram

Panchayat vide proceedings dated 11.04.1980, made an extent of

Acs.6.00 into 52 plots and sold 50 plots to third parties through the

registered sale deeds between 1982 and 2006 wherein the purchasers

have constructed the houses with the permission of Gram Panchayat

and living therein. During the year 2000 the said layout was

incorporated in the Municipal limits of Adilabad town and some NVSK, J

purchasers have constructed houses after obtaining permission from

the concerned municipal authorities.

3. While the things stood thus, when the petitioner sought to sell

the remaining part of subject land, the Sub-Registrar insisted for

No Objection Certificate from the respondents and when the

respondents were not granting the same, hence the petitioner filed

W.P. No.22746 of 2012 that was disposed of by this Court on

25.07.2012 with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate

orders on the representation to be made by the petitioner with respect

to the character of the land and alienability of the land. Pursuant to

the said order, the petitioner made a representation dated 22.08.2012

with a request to issue NOC for the land in Sy.No.49 to an extent of

Acs.11.09 guntas situated at Battisawargaon village, Adilabad district.

The 1st respondent, after obtaining the reports from the

2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, passed the impugned

Memo dated 01.04.2013 holding that the subject land is Government

Land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ

petition.

4. On behalf of the respondents, the 2nd respondent, Revenue

Divisional Officer, while denying the averments of the petitioner filed

counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the land in Sy.No.49 to an

extent of Acs.13.09 guntas was sanctioned Sumul Izafa in the year

1953 in the name of Sri Neertati Chinna Ganga and effected the

pahani for the year 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 and it is under NVSK, J

cultivation of Sri Neerati Chinna Ganga. Subsequently, the ownership

was changed while granting Kammi and Izafa to an extent of 11.09

guntas in the name of the petitioner due to purchase of the land from

the pattedar vide registered document No.94/1971 and the name of

the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records in the year 1971-

72 and continued up to 2008-09. It is submitted that as per the

revenue records the land in Sy.No.49 is Government land and the said

land was assigned to Sri Neerati Chinna Ganga prior to enforcement of

G.O. Ms. No.1406, dated 25.07.1958 under Special Laoni Rules.

Hence, the application made by the petitioner for issuance NOC for

the subject land is rejected as it is a Government land.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed written submissions.

6. The learned Senior Counsel Sri D.Prakash Reddy, representing

the learned counsel Sri Avinash Desai appearing for the petitioner,

while narrating the factual background of the case submitted that the

impugned Memo is contrary to all the records. He submitted that

no-where, ever in any document or factual report, the subject land

was mentioned as a Government land. Therefore, the impugned

Memo dated 01.04.2013 is completely contrary to the record and the

factual reports. He further submitted that in order to ascertain the

factual scenario, vide letters dated 27.08.2012, 12.09.2012,

15.02.2013, the 1st respondent, District Collector, directed the

2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, to enquire into the matter

and pursuant to the said directions, the 2nd respondent enquired into NVSK, J

the matter and submitted his reports vide letters dated 03.09.2012,

11.02.2013 and 02.03.2013 essentially stating that the subject land

was assigned in the year 1953 i.e. much prior to issuance of G.O. Ms.

No.1046 dated 25.07.1958 and there is no document to show that

there was any condition imposed for non-alienation at the time of

making assignment in the year 1953. Thus, the Prohibition of

Alienation of Assigned Lands Act does not apply. In support of his

claim, he placed reliance in the case of Letter sent from Plot No.338

and Ors., Vs. Collector and Ors.,1 Shyam Sunder Vs. Govt. of A.P.

and Others2 and Akkem Anjaiah and Ors., Vs. Deputy Collector

and Tahsildar and Ors.,3 and submitted that the impugned Memo

dated 01.04.2013 is liable to be set aside as being contrary to record

with a direction to the 1st respondent to issue NOC to the petitioner in

respect of the subject land.

7. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

submitted that in view of the discrepancies found from the reports

submitted by subordinate authority of the 1st respondent,

the 1st respondent declared the subject land as the Government land

and requested this Court to remand the matter to the respondents

authorities for fresh consideration.

(MANU/AP/0353/2008) = 2008(5) ALD 626, 2008(5) ALT 313

2001 SCC Online AP 682 = (2001) 5 ALD 766, (2001) 6 ALT 128

MANU/AP/0355/2011 NVSK, J

8. At this point of time, the learned Senior Counsel Sri D.Prakash

Reddy appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned

Memo is passed contrary to the records and remitting the matter for

fresh consideration at this stage would defeat the rights of the

petitioner who is senior most citizen aged 83 years and would not

serve the purpose and seeks to pass appropriate orders.

9. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri D.Prakash Reddy

appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for

Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the material

made available on record.

10. This Court on 29.04.2013, while admitting the writ petition

granted interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the

Memo dated 01.04.2013.

11. It appears that the main grievance arose when the

petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar for alienation of the

remaining subject land and the Sub-Registrar asked the petitioner to

get the NOC from the respondents and the respondents are not

granting the same.

12. It is pertinent to look into the inter se correspondence between

the respondents No.1 and 2. The information as sought by the

1st respondent, the 2nd respondent vide his letters dated 03.09.2012,

12.09.2012, 11.02.2013 and 02.03.2013 submitted his reports to the NVSK, J

1st respondent and the relevant portions of the same are read as

under, respectively:

Letter dated 03.09.2012 addressed by the 1st respondent to the

2nd repsondent:

"....In this connection it is submitted that the Tahsildar, Adilabad vide Lr.No.B/7055/2011, Dt.30.06.2011 has reported that on verification of Revenue Records the land in Sy.No.49 extent 13.09 acres was granted Sumul Izafa in the year 1953 and patta effected in the name of Sri Neerati Chinna Ganga S/o. Pochiga for the year 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957- 58 and it is under his personal cultivation and continued up to 1970-71. In the year 1970-71 the ownership changed while granting Kammi & Izafa to an extent of 11.09 acres and patta effected in the name of Sri Manmohan Reddy S/o. Ram Reddy in the year 1971-72 and continued up to 2008-09. Further the Tahsildar, Adilabad has reported that the proposed land is covered by grave yard and residential houses since last (15) years at present an extent of 4.00 acres out of 11.09 acres in Sy.No.49 situated at Battisawargaon village is available free from litigation for issue of NOC in favour of Sri Manmohan Reddy. The Tahsildar, Adilabad has reported that the land was assigned prior to enforcement of GOMs.No.1406 Rev., Dt.25.07.1958. Hence the POT Act, 1977 does not apply to this case."

Letter dated: 12.09.2012 addressed by the 1st respondent to the

2nd repsondent:

"....The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad report is incomplete and following points needs to enquire to take a decision in the matter.

NVSK, J

1. Verify Assignment Patta certificate issued to the original assignee for this suit land and find out whether assignment made free of cost (or) with cost and verify whether any conditions of alienation mentioned in the Assignment patta certificate and submit report of character and alienability of the land.

2. If assignment Patta certificate issued to the original assignee is not available, then the Revenue Divisional officer, Adilabad to conduct local enquiry and find out details i.e. (i) Assignment sanctioned to whom, (ii) year of assignment, (iii) whether any conditions imposed at the time of assignment and (iv) whether assignment made free of cost (or) with cost and submit report of character and alienability of the land. I therefore request you to enquire into the above points and submit report point wise to take a decision in this matter."

Letter dated: 11.02.2013 addressed by the 2nd respondent to the

1st repsondent:

"....The Collector, Adilabad vide reference 2nd cited has requested to send a report on following points. After verification of records the status of the Sy.No.49 extent 13.09 acres of Battisawargaon village is as under.

1. It is submitted that no original patta certificate available with the original assignee or with the writ petitioner to verify whether the assignment was made on free of cast or with cost. On enquiry it is noticed that as per faisal patti for the year1953 of Battisawargaon village the land was assigned to Sri.Neerati Chinna Ganga S/o. Pochiga and patta effected. As per pahani for the year 1955-56 to 1957-58 the Sy.No.49 extent 13.09 acres NVSK, J

recorded in the name of Sri.Neerati Chinna Ganga S/o.Pochiga.

2. As regards production of original patta certificate it is submitted that no patta certificate is available with the assignee or with the writ petition.

(i) The assignment sanctioned to Sri.Neerati Chinna Ganga S/o.Pochiga.

(ii) As per Faisal patti for the year 1953 the patta effected in the name of Sri.Neerati Chinna Ganga S/o.Pochiga in Sy.No.49 extent 13.09 acres situated at Battisawargaon village.

(iii) In the absence of original patta certificate it is not possible to know whether any condition was imposed at the time of assignment made to Sri.Neerati Chinna Ganga S/o.Pochiga and it is not known whether the land was assigned with cost or free of cost."

Letter dated 02.03.2013, addressed by the 2nd respondent to the 1st repsondent:

"Point.1. It is submitted that the land in Sy.No.49 extent 13.23 acres of Battisawargaon village of Adilabad Mandal was assigned under Spl.Laoni Rules to Sri Neerati Chinna Ganga S/o.Pochiga. The patta effected in the Faisal patta for the year 1953 and the name of original assignee was recorded in the year 1955-56 to 1957-58. Out of which Sri Manmohan Reddy has purchased the land to an extent of 11.23 (11.09 guntas) through registered documents and patta was also effected in Revenue records in the year 1971-72. Since 1971-72 Sri K Manmohan Reddy was recorded as pattedar. On spot only 4.00 acres land is available with the purchaser and the remaining area 7.23 acres sold to others by the purchaser by making plots through register deeds.

NVSK, J

Point No.2. The Neerati Chinna Ganga S/o.Pochiga the original laoni assignee has sold the land to an extent of 11.23 acres (11.09 guntas) in the year 1970 and patta effected in the faisal patti under Wargmubadula Izfa in the year 1970-71 and subsequently the name of Sri K Manmohan Reddy is recorded as pattedar.

Point No.3. On verification the sethwar is in torn out condition. However the copies of faisal pattai for the year 1953, pahani for the year 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957,58 (theensala), faisal patti for the year 1970-71 and pahani for the year 1971-72, 1985-86 and latest pahanies for the years 2008-09 & 2010-11 and 1B in the name of Sri K Manmohan Reddy to an extent of 11.23 acres (11.09) are enclosed."

13. From the above, through the letter dated 03.09.2012,

the 2nd respondent categorically submitted in his report stating that

initially an extent of 13.09 guntas in Sy.No.49 was granted Sumul

Izafa in the year 1953 and patta effected in the name of one Sri

Neerati Chinna Ganga and subsequently ownership changed while

granting Kammi & Izafa to an extent of 11.09 guntas and patta

effected in the name of Sri Manmohan Reddy i.e. petitioner.

It is further submitted that an extent of Acs.4.00 gutnas of land is

available free from litigation for issue of NOC in favour of the

petitioner. The Tahsildar has reported that the land was assigned

prior to enforcement of G.O. Ms. No.1406 dated 25.07.1958 hence,

the POT Act, 1977 does not apply to this case. It is observed from the

letter of the 2nd respondent that nowhere the subject land was

mentioned is Government land.

NVSK, J

14. The office of the 1st respondent having felt that the report earlier

submitted by the 2nd respondent was incomplete, addressed a letter

dated 12.09.2012 to the 2nd respondent with a request to enquire into

matter point wise regarding the character and alienability of the

subject land.

15. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent through the letter dated

11.02.2013, submitted point wise report stating that the land in

Sy.No.49 to an extent of Acs.11.09 guntas was assigned under Special

Laoni Rules in the name of Sri Neerati Chinna Ganga and

subsequently patta effected in the name of petitioner to an extent of

Acs.11.09 guntas by sanctioning Warg Mubabdula Izafa and also

submitted that Acs.4.00 gutnas land is found available. In this letter,

the 2nd respondent referred the observations made by this Court in the

W.P. No.30526 of 2012 and batch, which reads as under:

"....In order to see that the litigation of this nature is curbed once and for all, I feel it not only appropriate, but also imperative to issue the following directions, which shall be of general application throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh and govern all transactions of registration, to take place in future:

(A) The Registering officers shall not insist on production of NOCs as a condition for receiving the documents for registration.

(B) The Registering officers shall not refuse to receive the documents for registration only on the ground that the properties were included in the prohibitory lists sent by the Revenue authorities, for reasons such as NVSK, J

that the ownership column of the RSR contains dots, or that the lands are shown as AWD lands in the Revenue Records or that the lands are assigned lands.

(C) In cases of entries in RSRs containing dots or describing the lands as AWD, unless a notification has been issued under Section 22-A(2) of the Act, the Registering officers shall not refuse to receive and register the documents. The registration of such documents, however, shall be without prejudice to the right of the Government and its functionaries to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of possession of the properties covered by such documents, if in their opinion they belong to the Government.

(D) In cases of assigned lands, if there is clear proof to the effect that such assignments were made prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18-6-1954 in the Andhra Area and G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25-7- 1958 in the Telangana Area, the Registering officers shall receive and register the documents, notwithstanding the fact that the properties were included in the prohibitory lists sent by the Revenue authorities. In respect of the documents involving properties assigned subsequent to the issuance of the above mentioned G.Os., in view of the embargo contained in Section 5(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the Registering officers shall make an endorsement while refusing to receive the document specifying the reason. If the parties feel aggrieved by such orders, they are entitled to avail appropriate remedy as available in law.

(E) Wherever there is no specific evidence that assignments of lands were made subsequent to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18-6-1954 in the Andhra Area and G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25-7-1958 in NVSK, J

the Telangana Area, benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the parties who intend to transfer the lands. In such cases, the Registering officers shall write to the Revenue authorities to produce proof of the fact that the assignments were made subsequent to 18-6-1954 or 25-7- 1958, as the case may be, within a stipulated time. If within such time, the Revenue authority concerned fails to send such proof, the Registering officers shall register the documents.

(F) In cases of documents pertaining to assignments made to Ex-servicemen and Freedom fighters, the Registering officers must consider whether ten years period has expired from the date of assignment and shall register the documents if the said period has expired. In other cases, the Registering officers shall pass an order under Section 71 of the Act and communicate the same to the parties concerned.

(G) In cases pertaining to assignments made to Political Sufferers, the assignees or the persons claiming through them are entitled to transfer the lands by sale or otherwise without any restrictions and the Registering officers shall receive and register the documents whenever they are presented.

(H) Where assignments are made on payment of market value, the Registering officers shall not refuse to register unless the assignment deed stipulated any period during which the land shall not be sold and the stipulated time has not expired.

(I) In cases of alienation of properties which are claimed to belong to Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the A.P. Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, or Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995, unless relevant NVSK, J

material is available before the Registering officers to show that they are owned by such Institutions, registration of the documents shall not be refused. Even if evidence is available to show that the properties sought to be alienated belong to the Institutions referred to above, the Registering officers shall receive the documents, pass orders assigning reasons for rejection and communicate the same to the parties concerned, who shall be free to assail such orders by availing the remedy of appeal under Section 72 of the Act.

(J) In cases where notifications are issued under sub-section (2) of Section 22-A(1) of the Act prohibiting registration of the documents pertaining to the properties falling under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A of the Act, the Registering officers shall make an endorsement while refusing to receive the document specifying the reason for such refusal. Needless to observe that if the parties feel aggrieved by such rejection orders, they can avail appropriate remedies as available in law.

The above directions shall bind all the Revenue authorities and the Registering officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh, irrespective of whether they are parties to this batch of Writ Petitions or not. Violation of the above directions by the officers concerned will be viewed as contempt of Court. If such instances come to the notice of this Court, it may exercise the option of initiating contempt proceedings suo motu against such officers even though they are not parties to these cases. The Principal Secretaries of the Departments of Revenue and Revenue (Registration & Stamps), Government of Andhra Pradesh, shall circulate this Judgment to the officers under their respective NVSK, J

jurisdictions under separate circulars to be issued in this regard."

16. From the above it is clear that this Court had given directions in

the said batch of writ petitions at clause "D" and "E" that in cases of

assigned lands, if there is clear proof to the effect that such

assignments were made prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1406,

dated 25-7-1958, the Registering officers shall receive and register the

documents. In the instant case, the case of the petitioner is that the

subject land was assigned prior to issuance of G.O. Ms. No.1406,

dated 25.07.1958. Further, it was also directed that wherever there is

no specific evidence that assignments of lands were made subsequent

to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25-7-1958, benefit of doubt

should be extended in favour of the parties who intend to transfer the

lands.

17. Through the letter dated 02.03.2013, the 2nd respondent

submitted that the land to an extent of Acs.13.23 guntas was assigned

under Special Laoni Rules to Sri Neerati Chinna Ganga and out of

which the petitioner purchased land to an extent of Acs.11.09 guntas

through registered sale deed and on spot Acs.4.00 land is available

with the purchaser and remaining area of Acs.7.23 guntas sold to

others by the purchaser by making plots through registered sale deeds

and submitted point wise remarks as extracted hereinabove.

NVSK, J

18. The inter se correspondence between the respondents No.1 and

2 is contrary to the record. More so, the respondent No.1 has taken

the stand that the subject land is Government land, which is contrary

to the letter dated 03.09.2012 addressed by the 2nd respondent to the

1st respondent stating that the land was assigned prior to enforcement

of G.O. Ms. No.1406, dated 25.07.1958. Hence, the POT Act, 1977

does not apply to this case and that there was no condition of non

alienability to the original assignee. The respondent No.1 issued the

impugned Memo dated 01.04.2013 without looking into the reports of

the Tahsildar and the 2nd respondent and the revenue records.

From a perusal of the impugned Memo dated 01.04.2013,

the respondent No.1 declared that the subject land as the Government

land. However, the said land was converted into plots and houses

were constructed to an extent of Acs.6.00 guntas and no proceedings

were initiated against the buyers of the petitioner's land under the

provisions of the POT Act till date.

19. From the above reading as a whole, it is obvious that the entire

assigned land is to an extent of Acs.13.23 guntas in the name of Sri

Neerati Chinna Ganga was assigned prior to issuance of G.O. Ms.

No.1406, dated 25.07.1958. Out of which, the petitioner purchased

land to an extent of Acs.11.09 guntas through the registered sale deed

and out of which he converted the land into plots and sold to third

parties through registered sale deeds and the only left over extent of

land on spot is Acs.4.00. In this regard, there is no dispute.

NVSK, J

Nowhere in the aforementioned letters has been mentioned that the

subject land is a Government land and it is not understandable that

on what basis the 1st respondent has declared the subject land as a

Government land. More so, some discrepancies found from the

reports submitted by the 2nd respondent. The authorities are bound

by their own records and they cannot pass any orders in deviation of

their own records.

20. Further, admittedly the learned Government Pleader submitted

that in view of the discrepancies found from the reports submitted by

the subordinate authority of the 1st respondent, this matter may be

remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration, at this belated

stage, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would serve

if the matter is remanded for fresh consideration.

21. Coming to the citations relied on by the learned Senior Counsel,

in the case of one supra at paras 48 and 49 relevant portion reads as

under:

"48......Further the provisions of Act No.9 of 1977 will not apply to the alienation of pattas/occupancy rights granted under Laoni Rules or under Revised Assignment Policy issued in G.O.Ms. No.1406 dt.25-7- 1958 since Act No.9/77 prohibits transfer of assigned land which is defined under Section 2(1). Laoni Rules as well as the rules issued under G.O.Ms. No.1406 dt.25-7-1958 deal with two types of assignments, i.e., assignment on payment of market value and assignment to the landless poor persons. Act No.9/77 NVSK, J

deals with assignment by Government to the landless poor persons subject to the condition of inalienability.

49. We are of the view that provisions of Act No.9 of 1977 will not be applicable to the cases where assignments were made on collection of market value or under Circular 14 except it were granted to the landless poor persons free of market value. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the case of two supra, at para 15 relevant portion reads as under:

"16.....it has to be only held that in case of assignment coupled with a condition of non- alienability, it is open for the authorities to invoke the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and declare such sales as void and consequently resume the lands. However, in cases where there is no such a condition, it has to be considered whether still it will be open for the authorities to take action under Section 3 of the Act. The answer should be in negative as the lands were assigned under 1357-Fasli Rules and even in 1950 Rules also there is no such a condition for non- alienability. The legislature having identified this lacuna, brought comprehensive rule in 1950 in G.O. Ms. No.1406, dated 25-7-1958 in supercession of other rules relating to the assignment. In that new rule, it is specifically stated that the lands should be heritable and they arc not transferable. Such a condition forms part of the assignment in respect of the assignments made subsequent to 25-7-1958 but it cannot be stated that such a condition should also be deemed to be attached to the assignment which was made prior to 25-7-1958. In the circumstances I am constrained to reject the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader tries to impress upon the Court that the very purpose of NVSK, J

assigning the land in favour of landless poor is frustrated, if they are allowed to sell the land. The contention appears to be appealing but in the absence of any statutory support, this Court has to necessarily reject this contention.

In the case of three supra, at para 10 relevant portion reads as under:

"10. In the instant case, Respondent No.1 has not given any finding that he has perused the patta granted in favour of Maqdoom Shareef under the Laoni Rules, 1950. Curiously, he placed the burden on the petitioners to show that the patta does not contain any condition against alienation. Indieed, it is for Respondent No.1 to be first satisfied that the land, which was alienated is "assigned land" within the meaning of Section 2(1) of Act 9 of 1977, which defined "assigned land" as the lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor persons under the Rules for the time being in force subject to the condition of non-alienation. In my opinion, the jurisdiction of Respondent No.1/competent authority, under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977, for cancellation of the assignment and resumption of the land, can be exercised only on the prima facie satisfaction that the said land is an assigned land, which necessarily means that the assignment made in respect thereof contains a condition against alienation. Respondent No.1 was, therefore, not expected to issue the showcasue notice without looking into the patta granted under the Laoni Rules. He has completely misdirected himself in throwing the burden on the petitioners to show that the Laoni patta does not contain the condition against the alienation. On the contrary, the initial burden is on him to show that the said patta contained such a condition...."

NVSK, J

22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the

impugned Memo dated 01.04.2013 is not sustainable and this writ

petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Memo dated

01.04.2013. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the

petitioner seeking to issue NOC and the same shall be considered in

terms of inter se correspondence dated 03.09.2012, 12.09.2012,

11.02.2013 and 02.03.2013 as pointed out hereinabove and pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as

to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 11-11-2022

Note: L.R. copy to be marked.

B/o.

LSK