Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Kalidindi Lakshmana Murthy Raju on 15 March, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
1
HCJ & RRR,J
W.A.No.342 of 2023
APHC010132952023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3446]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO: 342/2023
Between:
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Kalidindi Lakshmana Murthy Raju and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M DURGA PRASAD
Rep. by Sri N. Subbarao
2. Sri A. Syam Sundar Reddy
The Court made the following
2
HCJ & RRR,J
W.A.No.342 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Dt: 15.03.2024 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri B. Sasibhushan Rao, learned Special Government Pleader in the office of Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri A. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded 2nd respondent.
2. The respondents herein had purchased Ac.5.00 of land in Sy.No.71/10 of Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, from their vendor to whom the said land had been assigned by the Government. It appears that the respondents had also obtained permission under Section 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act') for getting the deed of sale registered in favour of the respondents.
3. The respondents had also filed O.S.No.11 of 1995 before the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, for a declaration that they are absolute owners of the land. This suit came to be dismissed. The respondents 3 HCJ & RRR,J W.A.No.342 of 2023 had filed A.S.No.2784 of 1996 before the High Court which came to be allowed on 16.07.2004 and a declaration of title and possession was given in favour of the respondents. Against this order, the State filed Civil Appeal No.3673 of 2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which came to be dismissed by way of the judgment reported in State of A.P. and another vs. K. Varalakshmi and others1.
4. After the delivery of the said judgment, the respondents moved the 3rd appellant herein, by way of a representation, dated 18.03.2021, seeking deletion of the aforesaid extent of Ac.5.00 acres from the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22A (1)
(a) of the Registration Act. This application was rejected by the 3rd appellant, by order dated 39.09.2021, on the ground that the subject land was classified as Government land / Gayalu in the revenue records.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents moved this Court by way of W.P.No.25297 of 2021 which came to be allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 15.09.2022.
6. The case of the appellants, before the learned Single Judge, was that the land was classified as Government land / Gayalu in the revenue records and as such the said land cannot be removed from the prohibitory list, despite the judgment of the 1 (2014) 15 SCC 591 4 HCJ & RRR,J W.A.No.342 of 2023 Hon'ble Supreme Court or the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the appeal. This contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge, on the ground that the finding of the learned Single Judge of this Court in A.S.No.2784 of 1996 and the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported above, had declared the absolute right and title of the respondents in the land and the request of the respondents for deletion of the respondents in the land and request of the respondents for deletion from the prohibitory list cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the land has been classified as Government land. Aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed.
7. Sri B. Sasibhushan Rao, learned Special Government Pleader in the office of the Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants would contend that the land had originally been assigned to a landless poor person and the same has been purchased by the respondents. He would further submit that since the said purchase had been regularized under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the nature of the land does not change and the said land would remain as assigned land which cannot be further alienated. 5
HCJ & RRR,J W.A.No.342 of 2023 He would submit that the said land cannot be removed from the prohibitory list on this ground also.
8. A perusal of the material placed before this Court would show that the land in question was originally assigned to a landless poor person and the same had been purchased by the respondents herein. This purchase stood regularized and the subsequent judgments of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the appeal and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported above, had declared that the respondents are the absolute owners and possessors of the land in question. In such circumstances, the appellants cannot refuse to remove the property from the prohibitory list.
9. The appellants have now fallen back on the argument that the land would continue to remain assigned land governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and as such the respondents, while being the owners of the land, cannot alienate the land to any other person.
10. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 has been amended by virtue of the amendment Act No. 35 of 2023. This amendment, by inclusion of section 3 (2) (ii) in the main Act, has now relaxed the condition of non-alienation. The Act, as applicable 6 HCJ & RRR,J W.A.No.342 of 2023 today, stipulates that an assignee is permitted to sell the assigned land after the expiry of 20 years from the date of assignment, in case of agricultural land, without any further reference to the government. In view of this change in law, the land in question cannot be subjected to the condition of non-alienation 20 years after assignment of the land. It is the admitted case of both sides that the assignment of land was more than 20 years back.
11. On that count, the argument of the appellants about the land being subject to a condition of non-alienation would have to be rejected. As the respondents are now free to alienate the land, it would not be permissible to continue the land in the prohibitory list.
12. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeal is disposed of affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25297 of 2021 dated 15.09.2022. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J JS.
7HCJ & RRR,J W.A.No.342 of 2023 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.A.No.342 of 2023 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) 15th March, 2024 JS