Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Ap vs Smt.D. Usha Rani, on 14 August, 2019
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT APPEAL No.166 of 2019
JUDGMENT:{Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar}
1. The present writ appeal came to be filed assailing the order dated 15.3.2019 passed by the learned single Judge, in W.P.No.2180 of 2019, wherein the appellants are directed to delete the land of the respondent-writ petitioner from the prohibitory list issued by the Revenue authorities under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 forthwith.
2. The respondent-writ petitioner filed the above writ petition seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of respondents Nos.2 and 4 in including the land to an extent of Ac 1.34 cents in Sy. No.547/2 of Piler Village and Mandal, Chittoor District in the prohibitory lands' list as DKT and the consequential action of respondent No.5 in refusing to entertain the sale deed for registration stating that the same is included in the prohibitory lands' list as Assigned land, as illegal, arbitrary, and quite contrary to the well established legal principles laid down in the case of Sub-Registrar Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District Vs K Guruvaiah reported in 2009 (2) ALD 250 DB as well as the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in WA No.1920 of 2017 dated 18.12.2017, apart from being violation of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A and consequently, direct the 5th Respondent to register the proposed sale deed submitted by the petitioner pertaining to the land admeasuring Ac.1.34 cents in Sy No 547/2 of Piler Village and Mandal Chittoor District, without reference to the prohibitory list furnished by the Revenue Authorities and to release the same and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court ..."
It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner purchased the subject land, which was originally assigned in favour 2 HACJ & MSM,J WA No.166/2019 of one Venkata Rami Reddy, S/o Chinna Basi Reddy. The said assignee mortgaged the said land in favour of Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Piler, which is under the control of District Co-operative Central Bank, for their agricultural purpose, and as he could not repay the loan amount, the District Co-operative Central Bank put the land for auction through E.P.No.129/2006-07. In the said auction, the vendor of the writ petitioner viz., T. Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o Appaswamy was declared as a highest bidder, and sale certificate was issued to him on 12.10.2017. The writ petitioner purchased the said property through her lawful vendor for a valuable sale consideration. When the writ petitioner approached the Sub- Registrar, Piler, to issue market value certificate, he refused to issue the same on the ground that the land is assigned land and it is included in the prohibited list. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the appellants herein to delete the subject land from the prohibitory list. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.
4. It is not in dispute that this matter is identical to the matter in WA No.1920 of 2017. While allowing the said appeal, the Division Bench relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sub-Registrar, Sri Kalahasti Vs. K. Guravaiah1, wherein it was held that once the mortgaged property is put to sale for failure of the assignee to repay the debt, these lands, in the hands of the auction purchaser, looses the character of assigned land and, consequently, the auction purchaser would have an absolute right and title over the property. Even when the Government resumes assigned land, for a public purpose, it is nonetheless obligated to compensate the assignee as, by such resumption, the assignee is deprived of his livelihood. A larger Bench of 1 2009(3) ALT 85 (DB) (WA No.950/2007, dated 30.12.2008) 3 HACJ & MSM,J WA No.166/2019 this Court in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division V. Mekala Pandu2 held that on resumption of assigned lands by the Government, albeit for a public purpose, the assignee is entitled to be paid the market value of the land equivalent to that prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act.
5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that challenging the order of the Division Bench in WA No.1920 of 2017, the Government preferred SLP, before the Apex Court, which was dismissed at the admission stage.
6. Having regard to the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ _________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Dated: 14.08.2019 Nn 2 2004(2) ALD 451 4 HACJ & MSM,J WA No.166/2019 THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT APPEAL No.166 of 2019 (Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar} 14.8.2019 Nn