Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Aluri Annapurna vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And on 16 December, 2025
Author: D Ramesh
Bench: D Ramesh
1
DR, J
W.P.No.26000 of 2024
APHC010499102024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3208]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 26000/2024
Between:
1. ALURI ANNAPURNA, W/O. SURYA SATYANARAYANA,
AGED 68 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O FLAT NO
306, SLV GANGOTHRI TOWERS, NEAR WATER TANK,
ASR NAGAR, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (STAMPS
AND REGISTRATION) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT LAND COMMITTEE - CUM -
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ELURU, ELURU
DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, DWARAKA TIRUMALA MANDAL,
DWARAKA TIRUMALA, ELURU DISTRICT.
5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT.
2
DR, J
W.P.No.26000 of 2024
6. THE SUB REGISTRAR, 9-144, BHIMADOLE, BHIMADOLE
MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SITA RAM CHAPARLA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
The Court made the following:
3
DR, J
W.P.No.26000 of 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.26000 of 2024
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed questioning the endorsement dated 19.09.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. On perusal of the impugned endorsement, it shows that the petitioner has made an application in Mee-Seva on 27.02.2024 for deletion of the subject property from prohibitory list notified under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, „the Act‟). When the respondents have not taken any action left with no option, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.10005 of 2024. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.04.2024. In compliance to the said directions, the 2nd respondent has issued the present impugned endorsement. On perusal of the impugned endorsement, it clearly demonstrates that the land for an extent of Ac.4.80 cents in RS.No.297-2 of G.Kothapalli Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru District, has been assigned to Sri Kodigumpula 4 DR, J W.P.No.26000 of 2024 David under ex-servicemen quota vide letter dated 14.09.1998 and his name was incorporated in RSR. It is also admitted that based on the request made by the original assignee, the then Revenue Divisional Officer has issued an endorsement dated 15.06.2010 based on the orders of the District Collector permitting the assignee to sell the property in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993. But, surprisingly, the respondent authorities have taken an objection that on verification from the Zilla Sainik Welfare Office, Eluru, no certificate has been found in favour of Sri Kodigumpula David in the ex-servicemen register. Further, they have taken an objection that in the LD patta produced by the applicant, there is no mention with regard to the category of assignment made and the original assignment details and the assignment register are not available in Tahsildar office. Hence, they have rejected to delete the subject property from the prohibitory list.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has questioned the impugned endorsement on two grounds. The first ground is when the grant of assignment in favour of the original assignee i.e., Sri Kodigumpula David is not in dispute and also 5 DR, J W.P.No.26000 of 2024 the endorsement given by the then Revenue Divisional Officer on 15.06.2010 based on the directions of the District Collector, West Godavari giving permission to alienate the property, the respondents ought not to have taken any objection with regard to the category of assignment. The petitioner being a bona fide purchaser has purchased the property based on the endorsement issued by the then Revenue Divisional Officer on 15.06.2010. If the respondents have taken the objection on the said date, the question of registration in favour of the petitioner does not arise. When the respondents have granted permission to the original assignee to sell the property, at this point of time, the respondents ought not to have taken such objection and it is not for the petitioner to prove whether the original assignee is an ex- serviceman or not. He sold the property based on the endorsement issued by the respondent authorities. Hence, the respondents ought not to have included the subject property in prohibitory list. Further, the second ground with regard to non- availability of the original assignment is also not concerned with the petitioner. It is for the authorities to safeguard their records. If the records are not available that does not mean that the petitioner‟s property ought to be included in prohibitory list notified 6 DR, J W.P.No.26000 of 2024 under Section 22-A of the Act and when the respondents are not denying with regard to the orders passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer on 15.06.2010, the question of non-availability of the records does not arise. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel has relied on the orders passed by this Court in K.Sridhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue in W.P.No.28882 of 2022, wherein an identical issue has been considered by this Court and held at paragraph No.18 as follows:
"18. Further the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there is no entry in DKT register maintained by the concerned Tahsildar. Further the 2nd respondent completely ignored the factum of issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioner and his vendor. On a close perusal of counter affidavit filed in the present writ petition, it is clear that the respondent did not deny the issuance of DKT patta in favour of Sri K.C.Naga Raju. Further, by stating that the DKT register does not contain the entry showing that DKT patta was issued in favour of original assignee Sri K.C.Naga Raju, the respondents did not put forth anything to substantiate the same. Merely because the DKT patta register does not contain entry, the same cannot be put against the petitioner. Further making entry in the DKT register is exclusively within the domain of the concerned Tahsildar 7 DR, J W.P.No.26000 of 2024 and it is only a Ministerial act. The counsel for petitioner places reliance on Judgment in the case of "Ande Narasimha Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others"1 in support of his contention. In the said Judgment this Court held as under:
"6. In my opinion, missing of the file cannot be allowed to work to the disadvantage of the petitioner. Once, the petitioner‟s status as ex-serviceman was recognized in the DKT patta, the condition incorporated in G.O.Ms.No.743, dated 30.04.1963, as modified in G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993, ensures to his benefit."
5. In view of the above observations made by this Court and also the orders passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer on 15.06.2010, the respondents have no option except to delete the subject property from the prohibitory list notified under Section 22-A of the Act.
6. Reply to the said contentions, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has made his submissions based on the averments made in the 1 2013 (2) ALD 702 8 DR, J W.P.No.26000 of 2024 counter filed by the 2nd respondent. In fact, in the counter also, the respondents have not denied with regard to the existence of the patta and also have not denied with regard to the orders passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer based on the instructions of the District Collector, West Godavari but they have taken objection with regard to non-availability of the identity card from Sainik Welfare Office and also non-availability of the original assignee‟s name in the register. The said requirements are mandatory for grant of patta in favour of the persons under ex- servicemen quota and even there are no records are available with regard to verification under which category the patta has been granted. Hence, as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the authorities have rightly rejected the case of the petitioner by continuing the property in prohibitory list notified under Section 22-A of the Act as the property is assigned land.
7. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, no doubt as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner when there is no denial with regard to the grant of patta, the question of category does not arise at this point of time. 9
DR, J W.P.No.26000 of 2024 When the authorities themselves have given permission on 15.06.2010, now, the respondents ought not to have taken the objection with regard to non-availability of the records. Admittedly, the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and she is no way concerned with regard to patta whether it is genuine or whether it is granted under landless poor or under ex-servicemen quota and what documents they have relied on while granting the patta is also not concerned with the petitioner. The petitioner is bona fide purchaser based on the documents and based on the orders passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer on 15.06.2010.
8. Considering the said submissions and also on perusal of the orders passed by this Court in the above referred judgment, the impugned endorsement dated 19.09.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent is set aside as the petitioner is bona fide purchaser based on the orders passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer on 15.06.2010 and the authorities are not entitled to include the property in prohibitory list notified under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Act and ought not to continue the same. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to delete the subject property from the prohibitory list notified under Section 22-A(1)(a) 10 DR, J W.P.No.26000 of 2024 of the Act considering the registered document of the petitioner. If at all the respondents want to continue the subject property in the prohibitory list, they may be given liberty to take appropriate action as against the then Collector and the then Revenue Divisional Officer and after conclusion of the enquiry against the said officers, the authorities may at liberty to take appropriate action for inclusion of subject property in prohibitory list under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Act.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 16.12.2025 Ivd 11 DR, J W.P.No.26000 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.26000 of 2024 Dated: 16.12.2025 Ivd