Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Prl. Secretary . Revenue Dept., Hyd ... vs Thirri Naga Ramana, Visakhapatnam Dist ... on 23 March, 2021
Author: Arup Kumar Goswami
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, C. Praveen Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
I.A.No.1 of 2021
IN/AND
WRIT APPEAL No.1388 of 2017
(Taken up through video conferencing)
State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep.by its Prl. Secretary (Revenue)
Secretariat, Hyderabad
and another. .. Appellants
Versus
Thirri Naga Ramana
S/o. Thirri Appala Naidu,
Aged 39 years, Occ:Business,
r/o.D.No.3-6-72, Bojanna Konda,
Gajuwaka, Gajuwaka Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District and 2 others. .. Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.P.Subhash, G.P. for Assignment
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1&2 : Ms.K.Aruna
Counsel for Respondent No.3 : ----
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 23.03.2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ) Heard Mr.P.Subhash, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms.K.Aruna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners.
2) I.A.No.1 of 2021 is an application for condonation of delay of 472 days in filing the connected writ appeal against the order of learned single Judge dated 28.04.2016 passed in W.P.No.26489 of 2015.
2
3) Paragraph Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 of the order of the learned single Judge read as follows:
"2. An extent of Ac.5.20 cts in Sy.No.354/3 of Maredipudi village, Ankapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District was assigned by the then Tahsildar in D.R.No.200/78 on 08.04.1969 to one D.Somulu, an exserviceman and possession was also delivered to him. In the year 1984, he sold away the entire extent in favour of one Shaik Azeemuddin and six others under separate sale deeds. Thus, the land ceased to be assigned land.
3. Petitioners contend that Shaik Azeemuddin and others offered to sell an extent of Ac.3.20 cts in Sy. No.354/3 to them and an agreement 23-03-2015 was entered into by them with the petitioners. Petitioners contend that they approached the Tahsildar, Ankapalli and requested to clarify the genuineness of patta of the land issued in favour of D.Somulu and he also clarified that the patta, which was issued under the ex-serviceman quota to D.Somulu in 1969, is genuine. Petitioners contend that as per G.O.Ms.No.1117 Revenue (Assignment-I) dept dt.11.11.1993, an ex-serviceman who was assigned land was entitled to alienate the land after completion of ten years period from the date of assignment. Petitioners contend that the ten year period, as far as the original assignee D.Somulu is concerned, ended on 07.04.1979 and only thereafter, he sold the extent of Ac.5.20 cts assigned to him to Shaik Azeemuddin and others on 15.05.1984. Petitioners contend that they have presented the agreement 3 of sale entered into by them with Shaik Azeemuddin and others for registration before 2nd respondent, but he refused to entertain the same stating that the land is Government land and he is insisting on petitioners to produce of No Objection Certificate from the respondents. They contend that this is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993.
4. Petitioners contend that the action of 2nd respondent in not receiving and registering document in favour of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the said G.O. They also placed reliance on the judgment dt.03.02.2009 in W.P.No.21325 of 2007 and judgment dt.07.12.2010 in W.P.No.30568 of 2010 wherein this Court has held that there is no bar to alienate the land assigned to ex- serviceman after expiry of period of ten years prescribed as per G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993.
5. Counter affidavit is filed by 3rd respondent admitting that there was an assignment in favour of Sri D.Somulu in 1969 but contending that it was done under landless poor category and not ex-service man category. It is also alleged that an extent of Ac.2.20 cts of the land assigned to D.Somulu was taken over by the Housing Department under Indiramma Housing Phase III, but no material in support of this plea is filed. It is also stated that the petitioners should prove that the original assignee is an ex-serviceman and that he applied for assignment of land under ex-serviceman quota. The 3rd respondent also pleaded that the land is vacant on the ground, that there are no traces of cultivation and in any event petitioners have not purchased the land 4 from the original assignee or his family members. It is also stated that the subject lands are government lands and they would be placed under Section 22-A of the Registration Act,1908 after verification and therefore 3rd respondent has not issued No Objection Certificate to the petitioner. Reference is also made to G.O.Ms.No.307 dt.06.06.2013 stating that the District Collector is competent for issuance of No Objection Certificate in respect of lands after valuation of Rs.50.00 lakhs and that thereafter only the Government is competent to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of ex-serviceman assigned lands."
4) The learned single Judge opined that in view of certification given by the 2nd respondent, the assignee D.Somulu is an Ex- serviceman and that Ex-serviceman was permitted to sell away the assigned land after a period of ten years from the date of assignment and once transaction takes place, such land cease to be Government land and it becomes private property.
5) In the background of the above facts, the learned single Judge directed the respondents to receive the documents presented by the petitioners in respect of the land in question.
6) In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that after receipt of the judgment, the authorities had undertaken an enquiry and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the Collector on 15.12.2016, stating that the land was not assigned under Ex- servicemen quota and that accordingly, the appeal came to be filed on 08.08.2017.
5
7) We are not satisfied with the cause shown for delay. If at all any such enquiry was to be done, the same was required to be done earlier and not after judgment was delivered in the writ petition. The appellants did not produce any documents in support of their contention before the learned single Judge. If land was not assigned under Ex-servicemen category, but under landless poor category, the authorities could have very well placed the same before the learned single Judge.
8) In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to condone the delay and accordingly, the I.A., to condone the delay, is dismissed.
9) Resultantly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
GM