Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kopparla Santhi vs State Of Ap on 5 August, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.16019 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declare the endorsement of 2nd respondent in file No. REV.FSECOC/6/2020-JA(F8)REV.COLCTR, dated 08.06.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 consequently direct the respondents to delete the land situated in Sy.No. 496/1 an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents of Avilala Village of Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and pass such other orders...."
The case of the petitioner in brief is that she is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No. 496/1 an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents of Avilala Village of Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. Originally the land was assigned in favour of one Kothapalli Venkataswamy under political sufferer quota vide DKT Patta No. 23a/4/1396, dated 12.10.1986 in an extent of Ac. 4.54 cents in R.S.No. 5/2 an extent of Ac. 2.04 cents and Rs. 496/1 an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal. The said Venktaswamy sold the subject land to the petitioner and remaining land to third party. Prior to alienation, the said K. Venkata Swamy made an application dated 19.09.1989 to 3rd respondent with a request to furnish the information for the purpose of alienation of the assigned land in favour of third parties. Accordingly the 3rd respondent informed by a letter in L.Dis.No.B.627/89, dated 30.12.1989 to the 4th respondent stating that the subject land may be alienated to third parties, based on letter, the petitioner purchased the land.
2
While the matter stood thus, the Government of A.P acquired part of assigned land for establishment of Chittoor District Dairy Development Corporation Unit No.2 and that they acquired the land in an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents in R.S.No.5/2 from K. Venkataswamy and an extent of Ac. 1.54 cents in R.S.No.5/2 from Sanjeev Chetty, passed an Award No.1/1993, dated 19.04.1993 and paid compensation to them.
The petitioner made an application, dated 16.08.2019, requesting to furnish market value certificate for the land to the 4th respondent, who informed vide proceedings, dated 19.08.2019, that as per the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 20.10.2019, the land belongs to Government. Thereafter the petitioner made an application dated 09.09.2019 to the 2nd respondent for de-notification, submitted all relevant records and same is pending. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17327 of 2019 and same is disposed of by an order, dated 28.01.2020 and this Court directed the respondents to dispose of the representation within one month. Accordingly the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner, dated 07.02.2020, directing the petitioner to appear before him on 06.03.2020 and he appeared and submitted all relevant documents. But the 2nd respondent, without considering the documents of the petitioner, passed an endorsement dated 08.06.2020 and refused to delete the subject land from the prohibited property list which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act.
The 3rd respondent filed detailed counter denying all material allegations, inter alia contending that originally the land in an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents in Sy.No.496/1 of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal was assigned in favour of one Smt. Thirapathur Lakshmi, vide 3 DR No. 93/64, dated 25.09.1954. The said Smt. Thirapthur Lakshmi sold away the land to one Y. Chengalrayudu S/o Gopalaiah of Desuri Kandriga, Ramachandrapuram Mandal under unregistered Sale Deed dated 12.01.1970. On coming to know about the proceedings in R.Dis (D)1184/2005, dated 09.02.2006 and resumed the land to the Government under Section 4(1)(a) of A.P.Assigned Lands (POT) Act 9 of 1977 on 10.02.2006. Subsequent to the resumption order, an extent of Ac. 0.72 cents has been set apart from the subject land and de-noted as Sy.No.496/1B for formation of 150 ft., width bypass road from Chandragiri - Renigunta and black top road was laid and the same was implemented in the village accounts.
It is further contended that the balance extent was de-noted as Sy.No. 496/1A1 in an extent of Ac. 0.60 cents and Sy.No. 496/1A2 in an extent of Ac. 0.20 cents assigned, on payment of market value to the journalists, Sy.No. 496/1C in an extent of Ac. 0.98 cents is classified as „AWD‟ and possession was handed over to the District Manager, A.P.State Housing Corporation, dated 08.06.2021, since then the land is vested with of the Housing Department, A.P. Housing Board is in possession of the land.
It is also further contended that the land acquisition proceedings for establishment of Balaji Diary in an extent of Ac. 2.04 cents in Sy.No.5/2 of Avilala Village alone was covered in the Award No. 1/93, dated 19.04.1993. In the said Award proceedings, subject land in Sy.No. 496/1 was not covered.
While initiation of the land acquisition proceedings, necessary notices were served on the parties concerned including the owners of the residential house and compensation was awarded in favour of the 4 eligible owners. The respondents denied the contentions of this petitioner that he became the owner of the property and inclusion of the property in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this court is denied. Finally based on material on record, it is contended that the respondents also denied the alleged assignment in favour of K. Venkataswamy and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
The 4th respondent also filed separate counter stating that the subject matter of the land is notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act by the competent authority and sent proceedings vide Roc.F7/4495/2013, dated 20.10.2018, pursuant to the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopalachari Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1. The District Collector, Chittoor vide letter No. Roc.F7/4495/2013, dated 20.10.2018, while communicating a list of Government lands, requested this respondent not to entertain the registrations in respect of the properties mentioned in the said list. The land in Sy.No.496/1 an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents each situated in Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District is one such property included in the prohibited property list.
It is also further contended that Section 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, clearly mandates that where before or after the commencement of the Act, any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for the purpose of cultivation or as a house site, shall not be transferred and even if any such transfer is made, that transaction shall be deemed to be null and void. As per the amended Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act and also Section 5 of Act 9 of 1977, transfer is 1 2016(1) ALT 550 5 prohibited. In view of the above, Kopparla Santhi, who is petitioner herein sought for market value of the subject property, this respondent issued a letter dated 19.08.2019 and came to know about notifying the subject property in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Therefore, the action of the 4th respondent is in accordance with law and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions as urged in the writ petition, while placing bunch of documents as additional material papers and requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition.
Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the land in dispute is not an assigned land to one Venkataswamy and it was assigned to Thirapattur Lakshmi, who violated the terms and conditions of the patta and that the land was resumed to the Government under Section 4(1)(a) of A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 9/77, dated 10.02.2006 and now it is part of the land covered by road and part of the land was handed over to the District Manager, A.P.State Housing Corporation and same is now in their custody. Thereby, the order impugned cannot be said to be illegal and requested to dismiss the writ petition. Thereby inclusion of the land in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act is not illegal and arbitrary.
The main contention of the petitioner is that the land was purchased by the petitioner under a Registered Sale Deed dated 14.02.1990 and the property was originally assigned to Venkataswamy under political suffers quota by the then Mandal 6 Revenue Officer vide Patta No. 23A/4/1396, dated 12.10.1986 and informed about the same to the 4th respondent vide letter 30.12.1989 vide L.Dis.No.B.627/89.
However, at the time of registration of the document in favour of this petitioner, no objection was raised, but when the petitioner intended to sell the property, an objection is raised on the ground that the land is included in the prohibited property list. The main endeavour of the petitioner is to establish that the land was assigned to K. Venkataswamy, he sold the same and sale is not prohibited by provisions of A.P.Act 9 of 1977, thereby keeping the land under prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act is illegal.
To substantiate the contentions of the petitioner, he placed on record bunch of documents and proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 19.09.1985 certifying that one Pavani Kumari, A. Kannaiah Naidu and T. Lakshmamma were granted D-Form patta by the then Tahsildar, Chandragiri, but they never brought the land under cultivation, since the date of granting pattas to them and they have expressed their willingness to relinquish the land and the relinquishment proposals are submitted by R.I are accepted.
Therefore, these proceedings would show that one Thirapattur Lakshmi relinquished her right in D-Form Patta in an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents in S.No.496/1 vide D.K.T.No.93/64, dated 25.04.1954 and the remarks column it is noted that violation of 2(1) Darakasthu Rules. Thereby cancelled the patta granted in her favour, but it was not the contention of the respondent/ Tahsildar that she herself relinquished or violated the conditions of the patta. But her children, 7 after her death sold the property in violation of terms and conditions of the patta and thereby cancelled the patta in the year 1986 vide proceedings dated 09.02.2006. In view of the proceedings dated 09.09.1985 question of again cancelling the patta by the Tahsildar, granted in favour of Thirapattur Lakshmi does not arise. Once she relinquished her right in the property due to her inability to reclaim the property i.e failure to bring the property under cultivation, cancelled her patta on account of relinquishment, the subsequent cancellation for violation of terms and conditions i.e sale of the property by her children is totally absurd and same is contrary to the earlier order of relinquishment dated 19.09.1985. The order of the Revenue Department is also placed on record and this was issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, which clinchingly established that patta granted in favour of Thirapattur Lakshmi was cancelled on account of her relinquishment. Thereafter, the land was assigned in favour of one K. Venkataswamy under political suffer quota, who sold the same as per proceedings dated 22.10.2018.
Apart from that the land acquisition proceedings were issued, but acquired part of the land in Sy.No.5/2 an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents covered by the same patta out of Ac. 2.04 cents. The proceedings of land acquisition vide Roc.F/3295/92, dated 03.05.2003 is also placed on record to substantiate the contentions of the petitioner that the patta was cancelled in favour of K. Venkataswamy, which is a part of the land covered by Sy.No. 5/2. Therefore, the material available on record clinchingly established that said K. Venkataswamy was assigned an extent of Ac. 4.54 cents in Sy.No. 496/1 (Ac. 2.50 cents) and Sy.No. 5/2 (Ac. 2.04 cents) out of Ac. 2.04 cents in Sy.No.5/2. An extent of Ac. 0.50 cents was acquired and paid compensation to said 8 K. Venkataswamy and passed Award is another strong circumstances to believe the patta granted in favour of Venkataswamy.
The petitioner acquired the land in Sy.No. 496/1 to an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents in Avilala village, when the patta granted in favour of Venkataswamy is subsisting and the sale in favour of this petitioner is to be accepted and accordingly assignment of the property to Venkataswamy is true and genuine.
When the land was assigned to Venkataswamy under political suffers quota by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati dated 12.10.1986, there is no restriction on alienation of the property and thereby the sale of the property assigned to political suffer is not prohibited. Therefore, inclusion of the land or notifying the land under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act is against the law, since the restrictions under the A.P.Act 9 of 1977 have no application and thereby question of prohibiting alienation by the District Collector on the ground that it is an assigned land is contrary to the law.
Hence, I find that the petitioner became the owner of the property by purchase under a Registered Sale Deed dated 14.02.1990 and entitled to deal with the property, since the provisions of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977 have no application to such land.
Accordingly, I hold that the land purchased by this petitioner in Sy.No. 496/1 in an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents notified in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act is illegal and arbitrary and consequently directed the 2nd respondent/ District Collector to de-notify or recommend de-notification to the Government, the property from the prohibited property list under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act within a period of eight (08) 9 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deletion, the 4th respondent/ Sub Registrar is directed to receive, register and release the document presented by the petitioner for registration in accordance with law.
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 28.07.2021 KK 10 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.16019 OF 2020 Date: 28.07.2021 KK