Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Padmaraju Raghavendra Varma, vs Sri Adityanadh Das on 22 June, 2022
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
C.C.No.971 of 2021
AND
REVIEW I.A.No.2 of 2021 IN W.P.No.8127 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
C.C.No.971/2021 is filed by the writ petitioner alleging that respondents / contemnors have willfully and deliberately shown disobedience to the order dated 22.04.2021 in W.P.No.8127/2021 and failed to delete the subject property admeasuring Ac.3.40 cents in Sy.No.300, Pullur village of SR Puram Mandal, Chittoor District from the list of prohibitory properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and consequently the 3rd respondent / contemnor failed to process the pending document No.594/2020 dated 08.09.2020 and register the same and thereby they are liable to be punished for contempt.
2. The 2nd respondent / contemnor filed counter opposing the contempt petition on the main ground that the writ petition was filed on 06.04.2021 and disposed of on 22.04.2021 and the respondents had no opportunity to file counter in view of the Covid-19 pandemic questioning the validity of the DKT patta. It is contended that the assignee was discharged in the cadre of Subedar Major which falls under the category of JOC (Junior Commissioned Officer) and hence he was not eligible for grant of patta under ex-servicemen quota. On this submission the CC was sought to be dismissed.
(a) Review application I.A.No.2 of 2021 is filed by respondents to review the order dated 22.04.2021 in W.P.No.8127 of 2021 and same may be 2 set aside and opportunity may be given to the respondents to file counter in the writ petition and contest the matter. The writ petitioner filed counter and opposed the review application.
(b) As both the matters are on the same subject, they are taken up together.
3. Facts are that one Karnam Subramaniam Pillai, ex-serviceman was assigned an extent of Ac.3.40 cents of land in Sy.No.300, Pulluri Village, SR Puram Mandal, Chittoor District vide DKT Patta No.26/4/1400, dated 16.01.1991 under ex-servicemen quota. After his death, his wife Smt. K. Dhanabhagyam, succeeded his properties including the assigned land. She proposed to sell the said land to the writ petitioner and they entered into agreement of sale dated 31.08.2020. When they presented document for registration, the Sub-Registrar kept the document as pending document No.594/2020 dated 08.09.2020 and refused to register it on the ground that the property was included in the prohibitory properties list U/s 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The case of the petitioner and her vendor is that since the assignment was made more than 10 years back, there can be no objection for alienation in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 04.07.2016. Hence the proposed purchaser filed writ petition on 06.04.2021 and the matter came up for hearing on 22.04.2021 and since the counter was not filed, this Court heard the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue-cum-Stamps and Registration and having found that there was no challenge to the assignment 3 of DKT Patta No.26/4/1400, dated 16.01.1991 and as grant was made more than 10 years back and in the light of G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 04.07.2016 which says there was no need of obtaining NOC in case of assignment made to ex-servicemen and freedom fighters in which 10 years period has been expired, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to take steps to delete the subject property from the list of prohibitory properties U/s 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and also to process the pending document No.594/2020 dated 08.09.2020 and register the same in accordance with provisions of Indian Stamps Act and the Registration Act, 1908.
4. Now as stated supra, the plea of the respondents is that in view of Covid-19 pandemic, they could not verify the records and ascertain the genuinity and validity of the DKT patta and counter was also not filed and this Court without affording further time, disposed of the writ petition and therefore the said order may be reviewed in the interest of justice and an opportunity may be given to the respondents to file counter and contest the writ petition. Their further case is that indeed, Karnam Subramaniam Pillai was not eligible for DKT patta, for, he served as Subedar-Major which was a higher post than Jawan.
(a) Writ petitioner filed counter and opposed the review application.
He denied the allegation that the original assignee had misrepresented the facts and obtained DKT patta. It is further contended that if the authorities propose to question the validity of the Patta, they have to file independent 4 proceedings but they cannot challenge in the instant writ petition. The patta was granted considering that the assignee was a landless poor person and settled at Pullur village and hence it is a valid one. It is further contended that this Court has granted three opportunities i.e., 09.04.2021, 16.04.2021 and 22.04.2021. The learned Assistant Government Pleader only submitted the gist of instructions to the Hon'ble Court but not filed counter. Basing on the respective submissions, the order was passed and the writ petition was allowed. Hence question of non-filing of the counter and non-granting of the time does not arise. On this ground the review petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended, the wife of original assignee is facing many travails as her health has been deteriorated and she is bedridden and cannot move without assistance and therefore she is in requirement of money for her medical expenditure. Therefore, the writ order has to be implemented by the respondents at the earliest.
5. Heard Sri K. K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue-cum-Stamps and Registration representing respondents.
6. As can be seen, the docket shows that writ petition No.8127/2021 came up for hearing on 09.04.2021 and on that day learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue-cum-Stamps and Registration took notice for the respondents and sought time for getting instructions. On his request the matter was posted to 16.04.2021 under the caption "for orders". However, when the matter was posted on 16.04.2021, the learned Assistant 5 Government Pleader did not obtain instructions but sought time and ultimately orders were passed on 22.04.2021. Thus, at the outset the respondents cannot plead that no opportunity was given to file the counter. Since there was no challenge to the DKT patta, order was passed. Be that it may, now the respondents filed review petition on the ground that the DKT patta is not legally sustainable as the assignee was not eligible to obtain DKT patta and on that ground the respondents are praying to set aside the order and afford an opportunity to file counter in the writ petition.
7. In the considered view of this Court the interest of justice requires that an opportunity should be accorded to the respondents to put forth the true facts for effective adjudication of the matter.
8. In the result, the review application I.A.No.2 of 2021 is allowed and order in W.P.No.8127 of 2021 is set aside with a direction to post the writ petition after two weeks for filing counter. As a consequence the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 22.06.2022 krk 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO C.C.No.971 of 2021 AND REVIEW I.A.No.2 of 2021 IN W.P.No.8127 of 2021 22nd June, 2022 krk