Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chakali Damodharam, M. Damodharam, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh., on 22 July, 2021
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, B Krishna Mohan
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
And
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
Writ Petition No.23737 of 2020
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not implementing the Award dated 08.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.39742 of 2017 by the National Lok Adalat, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi as illegal, improper and unjust.
2. The case of the petitioner is that originally the land admeasuring Ac.3.29 cents situated in Survey No.317/2 at Gandrajupalle village, Gangavaram Mandal, Madanapalli Division, Chittoor District was a Government land and the same was assigned to the petitioner vide DKT Patta No.98/1403, dated 04.07.1994, under the category of Ex- Serviceman, with a condition that he shall not alienate the land for a period of ten years. According to him, after the expiry of the lock-in-period of ten years, the Revenue Authorities entered his name as pattadar and possessor in the records of rights and issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds in his favour. His name was also mutated in the Revenue Records. Thereafter, the petitioner claimed to have made an application to the 5th respondent for issuance of 2 CPK, J & BKM, J W.P.No.23737 of 2020 Market Value Certificate for alienating part of the land, but the 5th respondent refused to issue the said Market Value Certificate as the land was described as assigned land in the list submitted by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Gangavaram Mandal. Further, the authorities insisted the petitioner to produce the No Objection Certificate before entertaining the document for registration. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.39742 of 2017 seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 5th respondent therein in not receiving, registering and releasing the documents presented by him in respect of the subject land, basing on the prohibited list furnished by the 4th respondent and insisting on NOC from the revenue authorities as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. However, the matter was referred to National Lok Adalat. By an order dated 08.02.2020, the National Lok Adalat, with the consent of both parties, passed the following award:
"Both parties/counsel present before Lok Adalat Bench and agreed to settle the matter before Lok Adalat Bench amicably. Learned Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps conceded that the 5th respondent will receive and process the subject documents by following the guidelines issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016."
3. Pursuant to the said award, the petitioner made an application to the 5th respondent on 18.08.2020, to furnish the Market Value Certificate so as to enable him to alienate 3 CPK, J & BKM, J W.P.No.23737 of 2020 the property. Instead of furnishing the Market Value Certificate, the 5th respondent addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent vide Letter No.SRO-PNGR/219/2020, dated 18.08.2020 requesting him to confirm from the 2nd respondent and remove the property from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 as per G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016, who in turn addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Chittoor to delete the subject land from the prohibited list as per the Award dated 08.02.2020. It is said that so far, the 2nd respondent has not taken any steps for deletion of the subject property from the prohibited list. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.
4. Respondents 2 and 5 filed their counter affidavits denying the averments made in the writ petition except to the extent admitted by them. According to them, the petitioner requested for deletion of the subject land on the ground that the land was assigned to him under Ex-serviceman quota. But, the said land was assigned to the petitioner under the category of "General Darakasthu" and hence, the said land is included in the prohibited list maintained under Section 22A (1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908. Originally, the subject land was classified as "Grazing Ground Poramboke" as per Fair Adangal and the same was sub-divided and assigned to the petitioner as DKT land vide Patta No.98/4/1403, dated 4 CPK, J & BKM, J W.P.No.23737 of 2020 04.07.1994 under the category of "General Darakasthu", but not under the category of Ex-Serviceman and accordingly issued Pattadar Passbook and Title deed. The petitioner is not entitled to alienate the subject land after expiry of the period of ten years as it was not under the Ex-Serviceman quota. It is said that in the original Assignment file bearing No.DKT.98/4/1403, dated 04.07.1994, the petitioner declared himself as agricultural labour, with an annual income of Rs.5,000/- and he has not revealed the fact of he being an Ex-serviceman. Further, the petitioner signed in the DKT file as an agriculture labour with annual income of Rs.5,000/- per annum. As the subject land is purely a DKT land, not assigned under Ex-serviceman quota, the same was included in the prohibited list. According to them, there is no violation in implementing the award passed by the National Lok Adalat.
5. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the award came to be passed with the consent of both the parties, the respondents ought to have implemented the award.
7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue took us through the averments made in the counter 5 CPK, J & BKM, J W.P.No.23737 of 2020 affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and the material filed along with the affidavit to show that there is no violation in implementing the award passed by the Lok Adalat. According to them, if the petitioner is aggrieved, he may have to challenge the Endorsement, vide REV-FSECOHC (MIS)/8/ 2019-(F4) COLCTR, dated 21.03.2020, issued by the authorities.
8. Before appreciating the rival arguments advanced by both the parties, it is to be noted that the award passed by the National Lok Adalat was to the effect that the 5th respondent, who is Sub-Registrar, Punganur, Chittoor District will receive and process the subject document by following the guidelines issued by Government of A.P., vide G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016.
The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.279 is as under:
"(i)........
(ii) All such cases without dispute shall be deleted from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908 and furnished to the Registration Department;
(iii) In respect of cases in which there is a dispute with Government about the genuineness of the assignment or otherwise a list of such cases shall be prepared by District Collector and furnished to Registration Department by following the procedure under Section 22-A. The Sub-Registrar shall enter the details of such disputed lands in the online records deleting all other lands in which there is no dispute."
6 CPK, J & BKM, J W.P.No.23737 of 2020
9. A reading of the above G.O., makes it clear that in case where there is a dispute with the Government about the genuineness of the assignment or otherwise a list of such cases shall be prepared by District Collector and furnish the same to the Registration Department, by following the procedure prescribed under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Thereafter, the Sub-Registrar shall enter the details of such disputed lands in the online records, deleting all other lands in which there is no dispute.
10. The issue now is whether the subject land is involved in any dispute or whether it is a land assigned to an Ex- serviceman under Ex-serviceman quota?
11. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is categorically stated that the petitioner requested for deletion of the subject land from the prohibited properties list. It is also averred that the DKT patta was issued to the petitioner under the category of "General Darakasthu" patta rules. As such, the subject land is kept in Annexure-I of Section 22 (A) (1) (a) of the Registration Act. Land in Survey No.317/2 admeasuring Ac.26.45 cents of Gandrajupalle Revenue village was classified as "Grazing Ground Poramboke" as per Fair Adangal and the said land was sub-divided and assigned to the petitioner under the category of "General Darakasthu"
Patta Rules, but not under the category of Ex-Serviceman quota. Accordingly, Pattadar pass book and Title deed were 7 CPK, J & BKM, J W.P.No.23737 of 2020 issued for the subject land. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to alienate the subject land even after the expiry of ten years as his assignment was not under the Ex-
Serviceman quota. It is further stated that in the original Assignment file bearing No.DKT.98/4/1403, DATED 04.07.1994, the petitioner declared himself as agricultural labour with an annual income of Rs.5,000/- though at the time of assignment, he was in service of Indian Army.
12. From the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is very much clear that the subject land was classified as "Grazing Ground Poramboke" as per Fair Adangal and was assigned to the petitioner as DKT patta, under the category of "General Darakasthu" and accordingly, the Pattadar Passbook and Title deeds were issued. The submission of the counsel that the subject land has been assigned under Ex- serviceman quota appears to be incorrect, for the reason that in the online application made for assignment of land, the petitioner did not state that he was serving or served in the Army at that time, but claimed the land as agriculture labour, showing his annual income at Rs.5,000/-. Apart from that, a perusal of the patta granted to the petitioner, which is filed as a material paper along with the writ petition, does not anywhere indicate that the land was assigned under Ex- Serviceman category. On the other hand, it says that the said 8 CPK, J & BKM, J W.P.No.23737 of 2020 land is heritable by succession, which, prima facie, indicates that the land cannot be alienated to third parties.
13. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the award dated 08.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.39742 of 2017 by the National Lok Adalat has been complied with by the respondents, in letter and spirit, and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he can challenge the Endorsement dated 21.03.2020 in REV-FSECOHC (MIS)/8/2019-(F4) COLCTR in which event the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that any observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the writ petition and the same shall not influence the authorities in deciding any issue with regard to the subject land.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J ________________________ B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J Date: 22-07-2021 Ksn