Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ramayanam Satyananarayana Sharma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 June, 2022
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
WRIT PETITION No.20193 of 2019
ORDER:
The petitioners seek writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in D.Dis No.2252/2018/E2, dated NIL.09.2019 rejecting the request of the petitioners to delete the petitioners' land to an extent of Ac.4.86 cents in Sy.No.45/2 situated at Ravivalasa, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District from the prohibitory list under Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential direction.
2. Petitioners' case succinctly is thus:
(a) Petitioners are the children of late Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad who served in Indian Air Force since 1961 and for his excellent service, obtained Naga Hills Award and medals. After his discharge from service, on his application the respondent authorities granted land in an extent of Ac.4.86 cents in Sy.No.45/2 under ex-servicemen quota. The then 4th respondent issued D-Form Patta dated 12.11.1967 in D.Dis.No.149/66. The assignee enjoyed the land and after his demise the petitioners who are his children have been enjoying the said land which was devolved on them. The revenue authorities mutated the said land in their favour in the revenue records by sub-dividing the Sy.No.45/2 as 45/2A, 2B and 2C for an extent of Ac.1.60 cents each. When the petitioners tried to sell the said property, they came to 2 know that the aforesaid land was shown in the prohibitory list of properties dated 10.04.2016 by the revenue authorities which is illegal and unjust.
Hence the petitioners requested the 4th respondent to delete the said land from the prohibitory list of properties. He considered the petitioners' case and after due enquiry issued proceedings and referred the matter to the 3rd respondent for ratification. The 3rd respondent also confirmed the proceedings of the 4th respondent and sent the matter to the 2nd respondent to finalize the issue of the petitioners to delete their property from the prohibited list of properties. However, the 2nd respondent without proper verification of the record and considering the petitioners' case in a proper perspective, rejected their case on the untenable ground that the petitioners' father was not considered as ex-servicemen and that without proper verification of his service records patta was granted. Hence the writ petition.
3. The 4th respondent filed counter contending thus.
(a) Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad was an ex-serviceman and got posted in District Revenue Unit, Srikakulam as Senior Assistant who was assigned an extent of Ac.4.86 cents of dry land in Sy.No.45/2, Ravivalasa Village, Cheepurupalli on 12.11.1967 by the then Tahsildar, Cheepurupalli. The land was under his possession and enjoyment and later his legal heirs from the date of assignment. The petitioners submitted representation to RDO, Vizianagaram along with copies of pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in their favour for deletion of their land from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908. The same was referred to the Tahsildar, Cheepurupalli for necessary remarks along with the 3 D.C file for denotification of Sy.No.45/2 of Ravivalasa Village of Cheepurupalli Mandal.
(b) As can be seen, in the record room of the 4th respondent's office, no DC file or DC register was found which fact was brought to the notice of the RDO, Vizianagaram / 3rd respondent for further necessary action. After demise of the assignee, the legal heirs of the deceased applied for issue of pattadar passbooks to the then Tahsildar, Cheepurupalli and accordingly the land in Sy.No.45/2 was sub-divided into 45/2A, 2B and 2C with extents Ac.1.60 cents, Ac.1.60 cents and Ac.1.66 cents respectively and issued pattedar passbooks. The Government have issued order for issuance of NOC to the legal heirs of ex-serviceman if they are in a continuous possession and enjoyment of the assigned lands more than 10 years and according to the documents produced, the deceased and his legal heirs are in possession and enjoyment from the date of issuance of D-Form Patta and under ex-serviceman quota during the year 1967. It is further submitted that as seen from the Manual-1B register no entry was found in favour of Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad though he was issued pattadar passbooks and title deed for an extent of Ac.4.86 cents in Sy.No.45/2. As seen from the F.C.O fair adangal of the Village Sy.No.45/2 was recorded in favour of Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad as D-Form pattadar with an extent of Ac.4.86 cents but not mentioning therein whether the D-Form patta was issued under ex-serviceman quota or not and as seen from the S.F.A, the Sy.No.45 with an extent of Ac.14.25 cents was recorded as A.W.D (Gayalu). 4
(c) It is further submitted that the RDO/the 3rd respondent came to conclusion that the DR file or DR register regarding the assignment in favour of Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad was not available in the office of the Tahsildar and hence it cannot be decided whether the assignment was made under ex-serviceman quota or not and as observed from the D-Patta, it was not mentioned whether the land assigned under ex-servicemen quota / Sivai Jamadar/landless poor category. Except the proceedings of the then Tahsildar, Cheepurupalli, there is no substantiating evidence to show that the assignee was an ex-serviceman. Hence, the request of the petitioners for deletion of the subject land from the list of prohibitory properties under Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act was rightly rejected by the 2nd respondent vide impugned proceedings in Rc.No.2252/2018/E2, dated 13.09.2019 basing on the reports of the Tahsildar, Cheepurupalli and RDO, Vizianagaram. The allegation that the 4th respondent is interfering with the suit land and threatening the petitioners is incorrect. The writ petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard Sri T. Tejeswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the subject land was assigned to the father of the petitioners Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad under ex-servicemen quota as he worked in Indian Air Force and rendered his valuable services. The D-Patta was issued in the year 1967 and ever since he enjoyed the same. Thereafter the petitioners who are his children 5 have been enjoying the land. Their names were mutated in the concerned revenue records and pattas were also issued in their favour by bifurcating the survey number 45/2 as 45/2A, 2B and 2C in equal extents. Learned counsel further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 04.07.2016, the issuance of NOC for alienation of the assigned land after a period of 10 years of assignment was dispensed with, meaning thereby, there was no requirement of any permission from the Government for alienation of the land assigned to ex-servicemen and freedom fighters 10 years after the assignment.
6. He would submit that in the instant case, since the assignment was made more than 50 years back, there can be no objection for the Government for alienation of the land by the LRs of the original assignee. That being so, in spite of G.O.Ms.No.279, the authorities have illegally placed the subject property in the prohibited list of properties under Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 as if the said property is still a Government property undermining the G.O.Ms.No.279. Learned counsel would further submit that knowing this fact when the petitioners submitted application for deletion of subject property from the prohibited list, instead of acting upon in the right direction, the 2nd respondent on a flimsy ground that there was no record to show that the land was assigned to the petitioners' father, rejected their application.
6
7. Learned counsel would argue with vehemence that merely because the Dharkast Registers file (DR File) was not traced in the office of the 4th respondent, the respondents cannot entertain an illogical doubt whether the patta was granted under the category of landless poor/sivai jamadar /ex- servicemen. He would submit that the father of the petitioners was admittedly an employee in Indian Air Force and therefore he could not have claimed the land either under the category of landless poor or as sivai jamadar i.e., long occupation of Government land by a landless person. Therefore, in all probability the revenue authorities must have considered his case as an ex-serviceman and issued D-Form Patta. Thus, refuting the doubt of the respondents as illogical, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the writ petition.
8. Per contra, learned Government Pleader would argue that on the application of the petitioners, the 3rd respondent instructed the 4th respondent to verify the records and conduct enquiry and accordingly when the 4th respondent enquired records and Dharkast file (DR File) No.149/66 pertaining to Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad was not found and therefore the proceedings of the then Tahsildar dated 12.11.1967 was perused. However in the said proceedings the information as to whether the D-Form Patta was granted under the category of Sivai Jamadar / Landless Poor / Ex- Servicemen was not mentioned. Further, the D-Form Patta was issued prior to the discharge of Ramayanam Mehataji Prasa from his defence service. In those circumstances, the subject land was treated as Government land and it 7 was included in the prohibited list of properties and the application of the petitioners was rightly rejected through the impugned proceedings. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
i. The point for consideration is whether the D-Form Patta was issued to Ramayanam Mehataji Prasa under the category of ex- serviceman / landless poor / sivai jamadar?
ii. If it is held that the DKT patta was issued under ex-servicemen category but if the patta was issued before he was discharged from defence service, whether the assignee looses his right in the DKT patta ?
iii. Whether the impugned proceedings in D.Dis.No. 2252/2018/E2, dated NIL.09.2019 of the 2nd respondent are factually, legally sustainable ?
9. Since the above points are intertwined, they are taken-up together. The admitted facts in this case are that one Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad served in the Indian Air Force and was discharged on 22.01.1968 as per the copy of the ex-servicemen identity card issued by the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Vizianagaram which is filed along with the material papers by the petitioners. The material papers would further show that on the application filed by the said Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad, the then Tahsildar vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.149/66, dated 12.11.1967 sanctioned D-Form patta in favour of the applicant Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad to an extent of Ac.4.86 cents in the Sy.No.45/2. The material papers also contain a copy of 8 D-Form Patta issued in favour of the said Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad. In the proceedings of the Tahsildar the applicant is referred as "Military Personal" but not specifically referred as ex-military personal. As argued by the respondents, it is also not specifically mentioned whether the D-Form Patta was issued to him under the category of landless poor/sivai jamadar/ex-servicemen.
10. Be that it may, neither in the impugned proceedings in D.Dis No.2252/2018/E2, dated NIL.09.2019 of the 2nd respondent nor in the counter filed by the respondent in the writ petition, the factum of granting of D-Form Patta is disputed. On the other hand, the bone of contention is that the DKT patta was issued to Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad even prior to his discharge from defence service and that the proceedings dated 12.11.1967 of the then Tahsildar and the DKT patta do not reflect whether the patta was granted to him under the category of landless poor/sivai jamadar/ex- servicemen. This observation of the revenue department is manifested in the letter addressed in Rc.No.162/2018A, dated NIL.09.2018 by the RDO, Vizianagaram/3rd respondent to the Collector, Vizianagaram/2nd respondent. In the said letter he mentioned as follows:
"In this connection, it is submitted that, it is fact that the D-Patta holder i.e., Sri Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad has been worked in Indian Air Force and discharged from service on 23.03.1968, the assignment made on 12.11.1967 which is only 4 months before from discharge from Indian Air Force.
It is submitted that, as per 9 BSO 15(11)(2)(h):: "if the land applied for assignment by an ex- servicemen and either serving in the defence forces of India or demobilized and if the ex-serviceman prima facie eligible for assignment under rules he may be permitted to occupy the land applied for pending completion of all the formalities for its assignment to prevent unauthorized occupation of such lands by landless poor persons. (Government Memo No.302/B/69,3Rev, dated 24-6-69).
BSO 15(11)(2)(i) "the application for assignment of land under this paragraph shall be made within twelve months from the date of discharge or in the case of death on active service from the date of intimation to the family of the deceased" (G.O.Ms.No.743, Rev., dated 30.04.63) In this instant case the assignment made on 12.11.1967, but the Government instructions issued vide Government memo No.302-B/69,3 Rev., dated 24-6-69.
It is further submitted that, except the date of assignment in all aspects the assignee is eligible for grant of assignment under Ex- Serviceman quota.
In view of the above, it is requested to consider this assignment has been made under Ex-Serviceman quota as the assignment has been made only 4 months before his discharge from Indian Air Force, as in all aspects the assignee is eligible for grant of assignment under Ex-Serviceman quota except date of assignment."
11. Thus the 3rd respondent observed that the D-Form patta was issued to Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad only four months before his discharge from Indian Air Force and in all aspects he is eligible for grant of assignment under the ex-servicemen quota except the date of assignment.
12. Thus the 3rd respondent while referring BSO 15(11)(2)(h) and though noting that in-serving defence employees also can apply for assignment only 10 by virtue of Government Memo No. No.302/B/69,3Rev., dated 24-6-69 and assignment in this case was made prior to 1969, however made recommendation in favour of Sri R.M. Prasad on the ground that he was otherwise eligible and assignment was made only few months prior to his discharge from service. However, the District Collector, Vizianagaram without considering the said recommendation in a proper perspective, but considered the case in a different angle that the DR file regarding assignment was not available and thereby it is not known whether the assignment was made in favour of Sri R.M. Prasad either under Ex- servicemen/ sivai jamadar cultivation / landless poor category and accordingly rejected the application of petitioners.
13. On a careful analysis of facts and law, I am unable to countenance the impugned order. As already discussed supra, admittedly Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad was in the defence service i.e., Indian Air Force and his identity card discloses that he was discharged from service on 22.01.1968.
(a) The DKT patta was admittedly granted to him on 12.11.1967 i.e., just few months prior to his discharge. As already discussed supra, neither in the D-Patta nor the proceedings dated 12.11.1967 of the then Tahsildar, it was clearly mentioned that the patta was issued under a particular category i.e., ex-servicemen category. Perhaps basing on the said missing information and also due to non-availability of DR register, the 2nd respondent had hurriedly jumped into the conclusion that the category under which the assignment was made to Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad was not 11 known. However, we need to have a pragmatic appreciation of the facts and law at this juncture. Admittedly, as per BSO-15, assignment can be made to (1) Sivai Jamadar- who occupy the Government land and in long cultivation and who ultimately found to be landless poor person eligible for assignment (2) Landless poor persons and (3) Ex-servicemen. Since Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad was in service as on the date of assignment, he did not fit into the first two categories. Hence, obviously, assignment was not made to him either under the category of landless poor or sivai jamadar and manifestly, assignment must have been made under the ex-servicemen quota considering that he was going to be discharged from the service shortly. It is true that "in-serving" defence employees were permitted to apply for assignment under BSO 15(11)(2)(h), by virtue of Government memo No. No.302/B/69,3Rev., dated 24-6-69 and not prior. However on that ground alone the assignment made to Ramayanam Mehataji Prasad who was otherwise eligible in all respects cannot be discarded, particularly after a period of half century. At this length of time it does not lie in the mouth of the revenue to contend that it was only a regular assignment but not under ex-servicemen quota. In similar circumstances a division bench of Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its order dated 29.08.2018 in W.A.No.1029/2017, while discarding the argument of revenue that the assignment made in favour of the petitioners therein was not under ex-
servicemen but it was a regular assignment, observed thus:
"Once the assignment is admitted, the distinction now sought to be introduced namely, that the assignment made in favour of petitioners 1 and 2 is not under the category of Ex-Servicemen, but DKT assignment, is 12 unacceptable. The reason being, a person either drawing pension or salary does not satisfy the eligibility criteria for assignment of Government land. Therefore, once assignment is made such persons drawing pension means, their cases have been considered under Ex-servicemen quota."
14. The above judgment applies with all its fours to the case on hand. That being the law, the impugned order of the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the points are answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and impugned proceedings in D.Dis No.2252/2018/E2, dated NIL.09.2019 of the 2nd respondent are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to delete the subject property from the prohibited properties list under Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate to the petitioners. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 15.06.2022 krk 13 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.20193 of 2019 15th June, 2022