Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
A Rajasekhar vs State Of Ap,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Guntur, 3 on 21 November, 2022
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.36283 of 2016
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
"to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, in refusing to entertain the document of the petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Sy.No.1248 of Tallapaka Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District by letter dated 21.07.2016 is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of Art.300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned letter 21.07.16 of the 4th respondent by directing the respondents to process the document of the petitioner in respect of the land mentioned above without reference to the aforesaid list furnished by the 2nd respondent without insisting for NoC and pass such other orders".
2. The brief facts of the case are that originally the land to an extent of Ac.4-86 cents situated at Sy.No.1248 of Tallapaka Village, Rajampet Mandal is a Government land. Pursuant to proceedings in Rc.No.B7/379/95, dated 16.08.1995, the 2nd respondent-District Collector issued proceedings stating that the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad issued proceedings No.Spl.B4.2057/93-I, dated 19.07.1993, to alienate the said extent of land in favour of Integrated Community Development Society, Rajampet on payment of market value of Rs.2,500/- per 2 acre. Accordingly, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajampet to handover the land in question to the above referred Society on payment of market value and further directed to take necessary changes in village and mandal accounts and report compliance. On 17.05.2004, a No Objection Certificate was issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of the vendor of the petitioner stating that all necessary changes in revenue record was taken place and certified the possession and enjoyment of the vendor of the petitioner. Thereafter, the pattadar passbook and title deed were also issued to the said Society.
3. On 15.10.2012, the vendor of the petitioner passed a resolution to sell away an extent of Ac.3-00 cents to the perspective and intending buyers so as to clear the debts of the society. When the 4th respondent insisted for a no objection certificate from the revenue authorities by refusing to register the document, the petitioner's vendor filed W.P.No.32841 of 2012 which was disposed of on 17.10.2012 directing the registration authorities to receive and process the same for registration, without insisting for NOC. In pursuance of the said orders passed by this Court, a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by admitting it into registration on 03.12.2012 3 vide document No.44/2013 by the said Society / vendor of the petitioner.
4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that from the date of alienation of the land in favour of the vendor of the petitioner in the year 1993, the said land becomes private land and is in possession and enjoyment of private individuals. While the matter being so, the 4th respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 21.07.2016 pursuant to presentation of the document by the petitioner for registration stating that the said land was in prohibitory list and hence, it is not maintainable. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed.
5. The 3rd respondent filed counter admitting the fact of alienation of the said land in favour of the President, Integrated Community Development Society, Tallapaka Village and also handing over the possession of the land on 03.09.1993 and as well as issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the said Society. But however, he has stated that aggrieved by the action of the authorities alienating the land in favour of the President, Integrated Community Development Society (I.C.D.S.), one Sri T.Gangi Reddy of Tallapaka Village, filed a petition on 22.11.1993 before the then Hon'ble Minister for Revenue, 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad with a request to quash the orders of alienation issued in favour of the President, I.C.D.S., Tallapaka village.
6. Thereafter, the Government has granted interim stay directing the District Collector, not to allow any construction over the said land in question, until further orders in the instant petition vide Memo dated 27.11.1993 and further, the Government sought for clarification in Memo No.92359/Assn- 4(1)93-4, dated 23.07.1994, wherein the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet submitted the clarification as follows in his D.Dis.(E) 1158/1996, dated 23.10.1997.
Sl.No. Point Reply
1. Present market value of The land given on alienation is abutting the the land main road leading from Rajampet to Cuddapah. It is nearer to Boyanapalli
2. Whether the land is village in which evacuees of Somasila required for any other Project are settled. It is also nearer to public purpose such as Nirmitha Kendra of A.P. State Housing provision of house sites Corporation and also industrial area. It is to the displaced located nearby residential houses. It is persons under Somasila also revealed that it is the only Government Project etc., land fit for house sites available within a
3. Whether it is a fact that radius of 3 Kms from Rajampet town the land is located towards Cuddapah. Besides this several nearer to Industrial and villages in adjacent Nandalur Mandal are residential area submergible under Somasila Project. The evacuees of Nandalur and Vontimitta Mandals generally prefer to settle nearby Rajampet since several families evacuated under Somasila Project have already been rehabilitated in Boyanapalli H/o Tallapaka Village which is nearby the present alienated land. Since it is the only nearby Government land its requirement for communal purpose cannot be ignored. As 5 there is much demand for house sites in the vicinity of Boyanapalli village, the local market value is also high.
Further it is also observed that Tallapaka Village is the birth place of Saint Annamaiah has been adopted by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (T.T.D.) and the Government land in the vicinity may be required for any development activities.
Besides the above due to newly formation of bye-pass road at a distance 1 K.M. from the land under question, towards Rajampet, the value of the land for house sites in the vicinity has become much costlier.
Keeping in view of the above facts it is not desirable to alienate this piece of valuable land in favour of any individual or any other private organization at the cost of communal needs.
4. Whether there is any Keeping in view of the above petition, the other alternate land Mandal Revenue Officer has been which could be instructed to identify any other available to Integrated Government land available in the villages of Community Rajampet, Mannur and Utukur villages Development Society nearer to Rajampet town and submit alienation proposals, if the applicant agrees to the new proposals.
7. The 3rd respondent further submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer finally recommended to drop further action with regard to alienation of Government land in Sy.No.1248 an extent of Ac.4-86 cents of Tallapaka Village in favour of the President, Integrated Community Development Society. Thereupon, the then District Collector vide Ref.B7/8073/1993, dated 03.01.1998, submitted a report to the Government reiterating the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and further stated that the site is close to the off-take point of the 6 Rajampet bye-pass road and Industrial Estate, has potential for future development and as such, it is felt that this land should not be alienated to voluntary agency with no track record of work. Basing on the report submitted by the District Collector, the Government has provisionally decided to cancel the orders passed by C.C.L.A., Hyderabad vide proceedings dated 19.07.1993 and to resume the land from I.C.D.S. for public purposes and as such the Government has directed the President, I.C.D.S., Tallapaka to show cause within thirty days from the date of receipt of the memo as to why the orders issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Acquisition in his proceedings dated 10.07.1993 for alienating the land measuring an extent of Ac.4.86 cents in Sy.No.1248 of Tallapaka Village of Rajampet Mandal, Cuddapah be cancelled and the said lands be resumed and kept in Government possession for public purpose.
8. Further submitted that thereafter, as the petitioner has failed to submit his reply within the stipulated time, it was presumed by the Government that he has no reply and as such, final decision will be taken by the Government basing on the material available with them and also the prevailing market value of the said land is very high i.e. nearly Rs.5.00 crore per 7 acre. Further stated that as per R.S.R. of Tallapaka village, the land in Sy.No.1248 an extent of Ac.4-86 cents has been a part of the total extent of Ac.726.25 cents in Sy.No.1171 and as such, it is evident that it is a Government land and prohibited from registration. Further, in view of the orders of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.343 of 2015, 232 of 2012 and 352 of 2013, dated 23.12.2015, "the properties covered under Clause-(e) of Section 22-A shall be notified in the official Gazette of the State Government and shall be forwarded along with the list of properties and a copy of the relevant notification/Gazette to the concerned Registration Authorities under the provisions of the Registration Act" and as per the circular instructions of the C.C.L.A., A.P. vide CCLA D.O.Lr.No.Assgn.I (1) 126/2016, dated 17.02.2016, the said land was included in the list of prohibited property and the same was furnished to the Sub-Registrar concerned requesting him not to entertain the sale transaction over the said land.
9. Further stated that the stay orders over the said land are still in force and the petition filed by Sri T.Gangi Reddy for cancellation of the alienation orders is also pending and as such, the document sought to be registered is not in accordance with law. Further stated that mere entry in the pattadar passbook 8 cannot create any right and title over the subject land to the land owner and the presumption is rebuttable presumption.
10. The 4th respondent also filed counter stating that this respondent cannot go beyond the instructions issued by the higher authorities i.e. not to entertain any registrations shown in the list of prohibited properties, in which the subject survey number was included under category 22(A)(1)(b) of the Registration Act, as such, he intimated the same to the petitioner on 21.07.2016 and this respondent is no way concerned with the nature and classification of the subject land and it is for the revenue authorities to decide the same. Further admitted that in obedience to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.32841 of 2012, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner vide document No.44 of 2013 by following due process of law and if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved with the inclusion of the subject survey number in the list of prohibited properties, he has to redress his grievance by preferring appeal before the Committee, however without availing the said remedy, the petitioner has straight away filed this writ petition. Further stated that the petitioner has not produced any document for registration before this respondent. Hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
9
11. Though the counters were filed long back, learned Government Pleader for Revenue produced the copy of the latest instructions of the Tahsildar on 01.11.2022, wherein the Tahsildar has stated that :-
".........I along with the Mandal Surveyor, Rajampet Mandal and Additional Revenue Inspector, Rajampet Mandal and field verification revealed that the Sy.No.1248, Ext.Ac.4.86 cents of Tallapaka Village of Rajampet Mandal physically on the ground appears as detailed below (Google Map, FMB Sketch enclosed separately).
Sl.No. Sy.No. Extent in Acres Status on Ground
1. 1248 0.36 Residential houses constructed
2. 1248 1.50 Teak and Mango Trees and Vacant site
3. 1248 3.00 Layout Plots It is further submitted that no constructions relating to office building/training centers for waste and Development programmes / Technical Training School / Tailoring and Embroidery / type and shorthand training centers etc. have been constructed. Only a few Teak and Mango trees aged about 20 years are noticed in the said land."10
12. Now the point for consideration is whether the 4th respondent can refuse to entertain the document for registration on the ground that the land in question is a prohibited land (assigned land), when the said land was alienated by the Government in favour of the vendor of the petitioner in the year 1993 on payment of market value?
13. Now it is relevant to refer Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, which reads as follows:
"Condition restraining alienation.--Where property is transferred subject to a condition or limitation absolutely restraining the transferee or any person claiming under him from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property, the condition or limitation is void, except in the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor or those claiming under him: provided that property may be transferred to or for the benefit of a women (not being a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist), so that she shall not have power during her marriage to transfer or charge the same or her beneficial interest therein."
14. A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the land to an extent of Ac.4-86 cents situated at Sy.No.1248 of Tallapaka Village, Rajampet Mandal, was alienated in favour of the vendor of the petitioner i.e. Integrated 11 Community Development Society, Rajampet, vide proceedings dated 19.07.1993 on payment of market value of Rs.2,500/- per acre and thereafter necessary changes in the village and mandal accounts were also carried out and accordingly, the said Society was also issued with pattadar passbook and title deed. Subsequently, in order to clear the debts of the Society, the Society intended to sell away Ac.3-00 cents from out of the total extent of Ac.4-86 cents after duly passing a resolution and accordingly, when the registration authorities insisted for NOC, the said Society filed W.P.No.32841 of 2012 which was disposed of on 17.10.2012 and in pursuance of the directions of this Court, the registration authorities executed the document in favour of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.3-00 cents. Now, at this stage, the 4th respondent cannot deny further registration on the ground that it is a Government assigned land prohibited for registration under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
15. Now, it is relevant to extract the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32841 of 2012, which reads as follows:
"In the absence of any material to show that the 4th respondent refused to receive the document for registration, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ 12 petition permitting the petitioner to present the document, in which event, the 4th respondent shall receive and process the same for registration, without insisting for NOC from the respondents 1 to 3. However, it is made clear that if there is any objection for registration, it is open to the Registering authority to record reasons and communicate the same to the parties as contemplated under Section 71 of the Act, and it is also open for the Registering authority to verify whether the document is in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899."
16. At this stage, this Court relied upon a Judgment in Rimmagadda Rama Devi and others v. The District Collector, Krishna and another1, wherein it was held at para Nos.6 to 8 as follows:
"6. To appreciate the above requirements, it would be relevant to read certain provisions of the Act there. Section 2(1) defines "assigned land" which reads:
"assigned land means lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor persons under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the 25 condition of non-alienation and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings; and the word "assigned"
shall be construed accordingly."
7. Section 3 prohibits transfer of assigned lands; Section 4 provides consequences of breach of provisions of Section 3, empowering the person authorised by the 1 1996 SCC Online AP 563 13 Collector to take action for resumption of the land, Section 4-A provides for appeal and Section 4-B provides for revision; Section 5 provides prohibition of registration of assigned lands; Section 7 provides for penalty and Section 9 deals with powers to make rules by the Government.
8. By reading the above provisions, it is apparently clear that the scheme of the Act is to prohibit alienation of assigned lands except those on payment of market value because the whole idea of the Act is to make free gift of the lands to the landless poor persons, whereas the lands were originally assigned to the assignees as per G.O.Ms. No. 1142 dated 1-6-1954 on payment of market value under unavoidable circumstances. Further the definition of 'assigned land' makes it clear that lands assigned to the landless poor persons under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non- alienation and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings, and the word 'assigned' shall be construed accordingly. From the above, it has to be construed that if there is a condition of non-alienation while assigning the lands or the land is assigned under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, then only it is deemed as assigned land under Act No.IX of 1977. In the case on hand, there is no condition barring alienation of lands. On the other hand the note appended to Condition No. 1 of 'D' form patta specifically says that "this condition will not apply to cases of assignment made on collection of market value under para 1(8) of G.O.Ms. No. 1142 of 18-6-1954". By that condition, it is evident that there is no bar for alienation of lands. Therefore, it cannot be said that the lands are assigned lands. When the lands are not assigned lands, the Act No. IX of 1977 has no applicability to the assignments made to the assignees. In Ravuri Tulisamma v. Mandal Revenue Officer, 1991 (1) An.W.R. 533 a learned single Judge of this Court held that cancellation of assignment of land and grant of 'D' form patta on receiving consideration, on the ground of alienation, is illegal."
14
17. As per the above extracted facts, it is very clear that the vendor of the petitioner i.e. the Integrated Community Development Society, Rajampet has purchased the land from the Government on payment of market value and thereupon the said land would become purely a private land. Further, when the 4th respondent insisted for a NOC during the sale transactions made in favour of the petitioner in the year 2012 and in pursuance of the interference of this Court, the 4th respondent executed the document in favour of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents and thereafter, when the petitioner intended to sell the same in favour of the third parties, the 4th respondent refusing the said transaction on the ground that it is a Government assigned land prohibited for registration under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, is totally illegal and without application of mind.
18. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned endorsement dated 21.07.2016 issued by the 4th respondent, duly directing him to receive, process and register the document as required under Section 71 of the Registration Act, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date 15 of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 21.11.2022 ARR 16 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.36283 of 2016 Date : 21-11-2022 ARR