Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G Ramakrishnama Naidu And Another vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And 6 Others on 27 April, 2022
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition Nos.41446 of 2018 & 1901 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
In both these writ petitions, writ petitioners and respondents are more or less same and facts and law involved are also identical and hence, these two writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.41446 of 2018: In this writ petition, the petitioner's case is thus:
(a) The petitioner is an Ex-servicemen and the Government assigned the land of Ac.4.69 cents in Sy.No.214/1 of Chennayyagunta Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District through DKT Patta dated 10.03.1984 vide proceedings in ROC.No.148/111/1394 under Ex-serviceman quota and ever since the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by doing cultivation. The petitioner's name has been mutated in the concerned revenue records.
(b) For his personal requirements, the petitioner intends to sell the property and hence, he approached the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta / 6th respondent and presented Sale Deed for registration executed in favour of the purchaser. The 6th respondent insisted for No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the respondents 2 to 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16755/2015 before the High Court of A.P. and the Court vide its order dated 12.06.2015 directed the respondents to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioner without insisting upon NOC.
Thereupon the petitioner executed two Sale Deeds in favour of L.Hari for an extent of Ac.2.50 cents and in favour of K.Dileep for an extent of Ac.2.00 2 cents and presented the Sale Deeds. However, the 6th respondent refused to register the documents vide his proceedings dated 08.07.2015 on the ground that the land in Sy.No.214/1, Tirupathi Urban Mandal was classified as Government land and maintained in the prohibitory list under Section 22A(1)(b) of the Registration Act.
(c) Aggrieved, the petitioner approached revenue authorities and submitted an application for issuance of NOC to alienate the subject property. However, the revenue authorities did not consider his representation and hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8131/2016 and this Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's application and pass orders within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, the respondent officials did not consider the petitioner's application. In the meanwhile, the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.279 dated 04.07.2016, wherein the procedure of issuing NOC has been dispensed with for the sale of assigned lands by the Ex-servicemen and freedom fighters after a period of 10 years of assignment. Since the petitioner was granted patta in the year 1984, the said G.O. applies to his case and there was no requirement of obtaining NOC. Even then respondents did not entertain the Sale Deeds for registration.
Hence, the writ petition for a direction to consider the representation dated 23.10.2018 of the petitioner and delete the petitioner's land from the prohibitory list in terms of G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue Department, dated 04.07.2016 and for a consequential direction to 6th respondent to receive, register and release the documents presented by the petitioner.
3. W.P.No.1901/2019: While narrating the facts which led to file W.P.No.41446/2018, the petitioner submits that in the said writ petition the Court passed interim order in I.A.No.1/2018 dated 14.12.2018 directing the 3 Sub-Registrar, Renigunta to receive and process the document submitted by the petitioner if it is otherwise in order and such registration will be subject to further orders in the writ petition and the petitioner shall not claim any equities if he failed in the writ petition. Basing on the said order, the petitioner executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.1901/2019 and presented for registration. However, the Sub- Registrar did not register the document and the District Registrar, Tirupati issued a letter to 1st petitioner on 25.01.2019 stating that the subject land is included in the prohibitory list of properties under Section 22A of the Registration Act. The petitioner has been in possession of the subject property since the date of patta, but the 5th respondent all of a sudden came to the subject property on 07.02.2019 and removed the petitioners' name board. When enquired, the 5th respondent told that the 3rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings No.REV-ESEC(ALN)/34/2017-E1-CTR-COLI dated 23.07.2017, basing on which, the 7th respondent handed over the possession on paper to 6th respondent on 04.08.2017 for construction of 132/33 KV substation for A.P. TRANSCO, Tirupathi and as such the 6th respondent was going to begin construction. On that the 2nd petitioner approached 6th respondent as well as the District Collector and raised protest stating that revenue authorities have no right to allot the subject land to 6th respondent. However, there was no use. Due process of law has not been followed inasmuch as no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned proceedings. The impugned proceedings are only paper proceedings inasmuch as no possession was given to 6th respondent for setting up of electrical sub- station.
4
Hence, the writ petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of respondents 3 & 7 in allotting the land of Ac.4.69 cents in Sy.No.214/1 of Chennayyagunta Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District to respondents 5 & 6 vide proceedings in REV-ESEC(ALN)/34/2017-E1-CTR-COLI dated 23.07.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and the action of 7th respondent in handing over the said land to 6th respondent on 04.08.2017 on paper without following due procedure as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 23.07.2017.
4. In W.P.No.41446/2018, the 6th respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition.
(a) The Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban Mandal communicated a list of Government lands dated 06.11.2010 requesting 6th respondent not to entertain any registrations in respect of those properties. The said list contains the land in Sy.No.214/1 to an extent of Ac.4.69 cents of Chennayagunta Village. As per Section 22A of the Registration Act, transfer relating to the Government properties other than by those statutorily empowered is prohibited. Since the subject land is classified as Government land, it is prohibited from registration under Section 22A(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. Earlier the petitioner executed the Sale Deeds dated 30.06.2015 in favour of one K.Dileep and L.Hari in respect of the subject land and presented before the 6 th respondent for registration. However, since the subject land is classified as Government land, the 6th respondent kept those documents pending registration and assigned P.No.350 and 349/2015 and passed orders dated 08.07.2015 under Section 71 of the Registration Act refusing to register those documents. 5 Without filing appeal against the said order the petitioner filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable.
(b) It is further stated that pursuant to the judgment of the Full Bench of the A.P. High Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopalachari v. State of A.P.1 the District Collector, Chittoor vide letter No.Roc.F7/4495/2013 dated 20.10.2018 communicated a list of prohibitory properties wherein the subject property is mentioned as "Gutta".
(c) After filing the present writ petition, the petitioner executed the Sale Deeds dated 03.01.2019 in respect of the subject property and presented for registration. However, the 6th respondent kept the same pending by assigning numbers P Nos.6 & 7 of 2019 since the properties are notified as prohibited properties under Section 22A. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable and may be dismissed.
5. In W.P.No.1901/2019, the 7th respondent filed counter contending thus:
(a) It is submitted that the land in Sy.No.214/1 of Chennaiahgunta Village is within the jurisdiction of Tirupathi Urban Mandal but not Renigunta Mandal of Chittoor District. The matter has been examined with reference to the revenue records pertaining to Sy.No.214/1 of Chennaihgunta Village and it was found that as per the Fair Adangal of Village Chennaihgunta, land of Ac.4.69 cents in Sy.No.214/1 was originally classified as "Gutta" Poramboke and the same was changed as A.W.D. assigned to one Smt. T.Chandramma, w/o. Ramaswamy vide DKT No.634/4/77 dated 22.02.1968. The name of the DKT pattadar was incorporated in the village accounts under 10(1) Khatha No.227. Subsequently the DKT pattadar has violated the conditions of the 1 2016 (1) ALT 550 6 assignment and alienated the land by way of sale to (1) Y.Ranganadham, S/o.
Narasimhaiah (2) Sungali Nadar S/o. Periya Samy (3) Perimisetty Lakshmaiah S/o. Venkatramaiah and (4) Smt. Munilakshmamma, W/o. K.Siddaiah vide Sale Deed No.195 dated 21.01.1981. Due to non-availability of Fair Adangal of Chennaihgunta Village in its office, on the application of the above purchasers, the then M.R.O, Tirupathi Urban vide his proceedings in D.Dis/B/96/2004 dated 21.02.2004 mutated the names of purchasers in the village accounts under Khatha No.227 by deleting the name of T.Chandramma. However, after obtaining Fair Adangal of Chennaiahgunta village from the office of the Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad, the then M.R.O, Tirupathi Urban noticed that the land in Sy.No.214/1 of Ac.4.69 cents was a "Gutta" Poramboke land and assigned to Smt. T.Chandramma. Therefore, he addressed a letter to R.D.O, Tirupathi Urban vide reference in Roc.B/82/2005 dated 20.01.2005 for cancellation of the mutation proceedings of the then M.R.O. vide reference in D.Dis/B/96/2004 dated 21.02.2014 wherein the names of the purchasers of DKT land were incorporated. The R.D.O, Tirupathi after issuing notices to the purchasers vide proceedings in D.Dis.G/2121/2005 dated 16.07.2005 cancelled the order of M.R.O. dated 21.02.2004. Thus, the DKT patta has been cancelled and the land was resumed to the Government under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The orders of the R.D.O. were implemented in the village accounts on 16.07.2005. Since then the land attained its original classification as A.W.D. in the village accounts and till today it is classified as A.W.D.
(b) The contention of the petitioner that he was granted DKT patta under Ex-servicemen quota vide proceedings in Roc.No.148/111/1984 dated 7 10.03.1984 in respect of the subject land is false. No DKT patta was granted to the writ petitioner and his possession is false and fabricated one. Out of the total extent of Ac.4.69 cents, an extent of Ac.4.00 cents was alienated to the A.P. TRANSCO for construction of 132/33 KV Sub Station and the said extent has been handed over to the Executive Engineer, Construction, A.P. TRANSCO, Tirupati on 04.08.2017 as per the orders of the District Collector, Chittoor vide proceedings No.REV-ESEC(ALN)/34/2017(3i)-CTR-COLL dated 23.07.2017. The remaining extent of Ac.0.69 cents was also alienated to the Director of B.C. Welfare, A.P. for construction of A.P.B.C. Study Circle and the possession of the said extent has been handed over to the District B.C. Welfare Officer, Chittoor on 05.08.2017 as per the orders of the District Collector, Chittoor vide proceedings No.REV-ESEC(ALN)/5/2017(3i)-CTR- COLL dated 02.08.2017. Thus, the entire extent of Ac.4.69 cents comprised in Sy.No.214/1 of Chennaiahgunta Village is in possession and enjoyment of the A.P. TRANSCO and the B.C. Welfare Department. As such the contention of the petitioner that he is in possession and enjoyment of the subject land is false and baseless. It is submitted that the petitioner filed W.P.No.35144/2015 seeking direction to the District Collector, Chittoor to issue NOC and the said writ petition was disposed of on 28.10.2015 with a direction to 2nd respondent therein to examine the application of the petitioner and take appropriate decision. Thereafter the District Collector, Chittoor issued several notices to the writ petitioner vide reference Roc.F6/8330/2015 dated 23.08.2016 to appear before him to adduce evidence in respect of his claim. It is submitted that the writ petitioner has given his residential address as D.No.11/21/3, S.V. Nagar, M.R. Palle, Tirupati in all the writ petitions filed before this Hon'ble High Court. However, as per the enquiry it is noticed that 8 he and his family members are non-residents of the said address and his whereabouts are not known. One Sri T.Anjaneya Vara Prasad, S/o. Subbaramaiah with Aadhar No.258987701638 is residing in the said address. Similarly, the petitioner also filed W.P.No.8131/2016 seeking for NOC from the respondents and the said writ petition was disposed of on 22.03.2016 directing the 2nd respondent therein to consider the petitioner's application dated 17.01.2015 and to pass appropriate orders. However, no orders could be passed since whereabouts of the writ petitioner are not known. The writ petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. In W.P.No.1901/2019, the petitioner filed rejoinder denying the above counter averments of the 6th respondent. In the rejoinder, the petitioner pleaded ignorance of the counter averments regarding the assignment of the subject land to one T.Chandramma under DKT patta No.634/4/77 dated 22.02.1968 and her violation of assignment conditions and cancellation of patta. However, the petitioner firmly pleaded that the subject land was assigned to him under Ex-servicemen quota vide proceedings in Roc.No.148/111/1394 dated 10.03.1984 and ever since he has been in possession and enjoyment. He further pleaded that in the earlier writ petitions filed by him, the respondents never took the plea that subject land was originally assigned to T.Chandramma and on her violation the said land was resumed. Such a plea is as an afterthought to deny the petitioner's valuable right in the assigned land. Added to it, when the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act requesting to furnish Adangal copy relating to the assigned land, the Deputy Tahsildar, Tirupathi Urban Mandal 9 issued the said copy vide RTI application No.355/152, wherein he categorically mentioned the petitioner's name as Patttadar/Khatadar. Hence, the present allegation that the patta is a forged and a bogus one is untenable.
7. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners Sri Nagaraju Naguru and Sri D.Vijaya Kumar; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the official respondents, and Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, Standing Counsel for A.P. TRANSCO.
8. Reiterating the pleadings in both the writ petitions, learned counsel for petitioners Sri Nagaraju Naguru argued that the petitioner was an Ex- servicemen worked in the Artillery section of the Indian Army and he was a military servant and on considering his application, the Government have assigned Ac.4.69 cents in Sy.No.214/1 of Chennayyagunta Village under DKT patta dated 10.03.1984 under Ex-servicemen quota. Ever since he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. He further argued that when the petitioner intended to sell the property, the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta directed him to produce NOC. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16755/2015. The common High Court of A.P. disposed of the writ petition along with W.P.No.16607/2015 & batch vide its common order dated 12.06.2015 and directed the Registering Authorities to register the documents presented by the petitioners without insisting upon NOCs. In spite of the said order, the Sub-Registrar did not register the documents on the ground that the subject property was included in the prohibited list under Section 22A(1)(b) of the Registration Act. Again the petitioner filed W.P.No.8131/2016 before the High Court of A.P. and said writ petition was disposed of on 22.03.2016 directing the 2nd respondent therein to consider the petitioner's application 10 dated 17.12.2015 seeking NOC for alienating his land allotted to him within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Learned counsel would emphasize that in both the writ petitions, the Government have not taken any specific plea that no assignment of the land was made to the petitioner and the DKT patta produced by him was a fake one. The only plea raised by the Government was that the subject land is a Government land and NOC was required. The plea that the petitioner's DKT patta is a fake one is raised for the first time in the present writ petitions which is untenable.
(a) Learned counsel would further argue that in order to establish that assignment was in fact made in his favour under Ex-servicemen quota, the petitioner produced the DKT patta. He also produced copies of the Pahani issued by the Revenue authorities on the application filed under the R.T.I. Act. These documents coupled with non-denial of petitioner's patta in earlier round of litigation would clinchingly establish that the DKT patta produced by the petitioner is a genuine one.
(b) Learned counsel then argued that in order to disprove the validity and genuinity of the petitioner's DKT patta, the respondents have not produced any cogent and reliable material. In expatiation, he would argue that the Government have not produced the Assignment Register relating to the Chennayyagunta Village of Renigunta Mandal to establish that the subject land of Ac.4.69 cents in Sy.No.214/1 was not assigned to the petitioner, but was assigned to one T.Chandramma in the year 1968 and later on her violation of the assignment rules, patta was cancelled. In the absence of such crucial Register, the Government cannot claim to have discharged its burden. On the other hand, the respondents in order to show that the signature of Tahsildar, Chandragiri appearing on the DKT patta was forged, sought to compare the 11 said signature with the signatures of Tahsildar appearing on the Xerox copy of Award No.1/85 dated 27.09.1985 and the Xerox copy of notice dated 06.01.1984 issued by the office of R.D.O, Tirupathi which is said to contain the signature of Tahsildar, Chandragiri. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that such an attempt on the part of the respondents to disprove the authenticity of the DKT patta is quite objectionable. On the other hand, if they propose to challenge the signature of Tahsildar on DKT patta, they should produce before the Court the Register showing the list of Tahsildars worked in Chandragiri and from the said Register, they should establish the name of the Tahsildar who worked as on the date of issue of DKT patta and then produce the documents containing his signatures which are contemporaneous to the date of DKT patta and refer his admitted and questioned signatures to handwriting expert. Without making such efforts, he would argue, simply filing some documents which allegedly contain the signatures of the M.R.O. for comparison with the signatures on the DKT patta is legally impermissible.
(c) Nextly, he argued that to show that the subject land was assigned to T.Chandramma, the respondents did not file Assignment Register but simply filed the cultivation Adangal Registers for some Fasli years. He argued that the entries in those Adangals were fabricated to debilitate the case of the petitioner. He finally argued that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land and as such the question of the Government allocating Ac.4.00 cents to A.P. TRANSCO and Ac.0.69 cents to Social Welfare Department and granting advance possession does not arise. 12
9. In oppugnation, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue argued that in view of the specific plea of the Government that the subject land was never assigned to the petitioner and the DKT patta produced by him is a bogus one and he was never in possession of the land, he has to necessarily file a declaratory suit before a competent Civil Court to establish his title and possession but cannot seek to convert the writ jurisdiction to declare his title. The burden is on the petitioner to establish that the DKT patta was indeed issued in his favour and he has been in possession of the assigned land. However, he did not produce any reliable material in that regard except filing the DKT patta and Adangal copies. Both the documents are highly suspicious. Referring to the petitioner's identity card produced along with material papers by the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader argued that as per the said document the petitioner was born on 10.03.1962 and he served in the Indian Army from 1981 to 1997. As such the petitioner was only 22 years old by the time of alleged assignment in the year 1984. He argued that since he was still in service, the question of assigning land under Ex-servicemen quota does not arise. Further, the petitioner has not produced any document to show that his application was routed through the District Sainic Welfare Board to the concerned Tahsildar which is a pre-requisite under G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1963. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would further argue that if really the petitioner was assigned the subject land and he has been in possession since 1984, certainly his name should have been mutated in all the concerned revenue records. However, in the cultivation Adangal Registers produced by the respondents the name of T.Chandramma is mentioned as Pattadar and possessor. Only in Fasli year 1422 one stray entry is found in the name of the petitioner. The 13 said entry being a bogus one, the same was rounded off. While admitting that the Assignment Register relating to the subject land of Ac.4.69 cents in Sy.No.214/1 of Chennayyagunta Village was not filed, learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that since the assignment in favour of T.Chandramma was long back in the year 1968 and also the alleged assignment in favour of the petitioner was in 1984, the said old record could not be found. He would however submit that the respondents produced other reliable material to show that the subject land was in fact assigned to T.Chandramma but not to the petitioner. In this regard, referring to cultivation Adangal Registers relating to Faslis 1402, 1403, 1405, 1408, 1409, 1410 and 1422 (certified copies filed along with vacate stay petition and originals produced for comparison), he argued that in all those Registers, the name of Chandramma was recorded as Pattadar and possessor. Then referring to proceedings in D.Dis.B/196/2004 dated 21.02.2004 of the M.R.O., Tirupati he would submit that four persons who claimed to have purchased the subject land from T.Chandramma applied for transfer of patta in their names and on the recommendation of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, the M.R.O. passed an order to delete the name of T.Chandramma and incorporate the names of those four applicants. Then referring to the letter in Roc.B/82/2005 dated 20.01.2005 addressed by the M.R.O., Tirupathi (Urban) to the R.D.O, Tirupathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue argued that when the purchasers applied for mutation, the Fair Adangal Register of Chennayyagunta Village was not available in the office of M.R.O, Tirupathi Urban and therefore, basing on the village accounts available in his office which showed T.Chandramma as Pattadar, deletion of her name and mutation of the names of the purchasers was ordered. However, after obtaining the Fair 14 Adangal of the Mangalam Group Villages, from the Office of Director of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad and knowing that an extent of Ac.4.69 cents in Sy.No.214/1 was classified as Gutta Poramboke and the Government land was assigned to Chandramma, the M.R.O. requested the R.D.O. to cancel the earlier mutations made in favour of the purchasers. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further argued that basing on the aforesaid letter, the R.D.O. got issued notices to four purchasers of T.Chandramma to conduct enquiry. The purchasers have not received notices and they did not turn up for enquiry and so the R.D.O. passed orders vide proceedings in D.Dis.G/2121/2005 dated 16.07.2005 holding that the patta transfer in favour of the purchasers earlier ordered by the M.R.O, Tirupathi Urban was under a mistake of fact and accordingly, cancelled the said order. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that ever since the subject land has been noted as Government land A.W.D. He would submit that the said record belie the petitioner's claim of assignment of the subject land to him. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further argued that the contention of the petitioner that in the earlier writ petitions the Government did not take the plea that the land was assigned to T.Chandramma is not correct. He argued that by the time the W.P.No.16755/2015 and W.P.No.8131/2016 were filed by the petitioners, the subject land was already resumed and recorded as Government A.W.D. and incorporated in the prohibitory list of properties under Section 22A(1)(b) of the Registration Act. That is why the Sub-Registrar insisted for NOC for registration.
(a) Learned Assistant Government Pleader thus argued that in the light of the formidable official record, the DKT patta and copy of the Adangal filed by the petitioner may not be given much weight. Learned Assistant 15 Government Pleader would submit that the signature on the DKT patta said to be that of the Tahsildar, Chandragiri is highly suspicious. Then referring to the copy of Pahani issued under the R.T.I. Act, he would submit, the entry in the said Pahani was a stray one of the year 2015. He argued that when the name of T.Chandramma was consistently mentioned in the cultivation Adangals till 1410 Fasli and later deleted, the question of writ petitioner's name appearing in the Pahani till the year 2015 does not arise. He would argue that at any rate the mutation of property in the revenue records is only for fiscal purpose and not to confer any title. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner2. Finally he argued that the petitioner was never in possession of the subject land. On the request of the AP TRANSCO, Hyderabad, the District Collector, Tirupathi issued proceedings dated 23.07.2017 and allocated Ac.4.00 cents out of the subject land of Ac.4.69 cents for construction of 132/33 KV substation at Mangalam and handed over the advance possession to 5th respondent. The remaining Ac.0.69 cents was alienated to Director of B.C. Welfare, A.P. for construction of A.P. B.C. Study Circle and possession was given to the District B.C. Welfare Officer, Chittoor on 05.08.2017. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.
10. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petitions to allow?
11. Point: I gave my anxious consideration to the above detailed arguments advanced by both the counsel. Precisely stating, while it is the case of the 2 2007 (6) SCC 186 = MANU/SC/7303/2007 16 petitioner that the Government have assigned him Ac.4.69 cents in Sy.No.214/1 of Chennayyagunta village in Renigunta Mandal in the year 1984 under Ex-servicemen quota and since he has been in possession of the said land for more than 10 years, he is entitled to alienate the same without the necessity of obtaining NOC from the Government, in view of the G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (Assn.I) Department dated 04.07.2016, in contrast, the contention of the Government is that the subject land was never assigned to the petitioner, but it was assigned to one T.Chandramma in the year 1968 and as she violated the terms of assignment by alienating the land to third- parties and their names were wrongly mutated in the revenue records, later on knowing that the subject land is a Gutta Poramboke the mutation entries were cancelled by the R.D.O, Tirupathi after conducting enquiry. Needless to emphasize that the initial burden is heavy on the petitioner to establish that the land of Ac.4.69 cents in Sy.No.214/1 was indeed assigned to him and that he has been in possession and enjoyment. To discharge his burden, the petitioner filed the copy of DKT patta and certified copy of Pahani issued by the Tahsildar's office on an application filed under the R.T.I. Act. As rightly contended by the respondents, except these two documents, the petitioner did not produce any other cogent material. Since the assignment is denied and patta is claimed to be a bogus one, its authenticity has to be scrutinized in the light of other documents and surrounding facts. Hence, I perused other relevant material.
12. A perusal of the copy of identity card of the petitioner filed along with material papers would show that the petitioner was born on 10.03.1962 and served in Artillery Section of Indian Army from 1981 to 1997. Thus as argued 17 by the learned Government Pleader, by the time of alleged assignment in 1984, the petitioner was only 22 years old and still serving in the Army. It is not known as to how the young and serving person was eligible for assignment. Be that it may, as per G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1963, assignment of lands can be made to Jawans after demobilization and application for assignment of the land shall be addressed to the Deputy Tahsildar and the same shall be routed through Secretary, State Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Board and should be duly certified by the Officer commanding the Regiment in which the Jawans serve. In the instant case, the petitioner filed a copy of his application dated 13.10.1983 said to be submitted to Tahsildar, Chandragiri. However there is no endorsement that the application was routed through the aforesaid Army Officer. It casts a doubt on the copy of the application filed by the petitioner. That apart, the claim of the petitioner that the DKT patta was issued in the year 1984 was not supported by any other cogent material. As rightly argued by the learned Government Pleader, if assignment was made in the year 1984, certainly petitioner's name would be mutated in the concerned revenue records and he would be issued Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Surprisingly the petitioner seems to have not applied and obtained the Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in support of his claim that the subject land was assigned to him. That apart, the petitioner did not produce cultivation Adangals to show his possession. On the other hand, the cultivation Adangals for the Fasli 1402, 1403, 1405, 1408, 1409, 1410 & 1422 produced by the learned Government Pleader are showing the name of T.Chandramma as Pattadar and possessor of the subject land. 18
(a) Added to above, the learned Government Pleader produced the record showing that the said T.Chandramma, the original assignee, sold away the land to (1) Y. Ranganadham (2) K.Munilakshmamma (3) P. Lakshmaiah and (4) P.Sungali Nadar under a registered Sale Deed No.195 dated 21.01.1981 and initially the names of purchasers were mutated in the revenue records by mistake and later said mutation was cancelled. In this context, a perusal of the proceedings of the M.R.O. Tirupathi (Urban) in D.Dis.B/196/2004, dated 21.02.2004, would show that on the application of the purchasers, the M.R.O. basing on the recommendation of the Mandal Revenue Inspector directed to delete the name of T.Chandramma and incorporate the names of the applicants in respect of the subject land. Then the letter in Roc.B/82/05, dated 20.01.2005, addressed by the M.R.O., Tirupathi (Urban) to the R.D.O., Tirupathi shows that the mutation in the name of purchasers was ordered basing on the village accounts available in the office of M.R.O and later on verifying the Fair Adangal Register of Mangalam Group Villages available with the Director of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad, it was noticed that the subject land is a Gutta Poramboke belonging to the Government. Therefore, the M.R.O requested the R.D.O, Tirupathi to cancel the previous mutation proceedings and restore the land to the Government. Then a perusal of the order of the R.D.O., Tirupathi vide D.Dis.G/2121/2005, dated 16.07.2005, shows that the R.D.O. issued notices to the purchasers for conducting enquiry, but they did not turn up and therefore, on perusal of the records available, he opined that the mutation order earlier passed by the M.R.O. in favour of the purchasers was under mistake of fact and accordingly, he cancelled the mutation proceedings of the M.R.O. The aforesaid proceedings would clearly show that the subject 19 land was in fact assigned to T.Chandramma and she sold away the same to third-parties and initially their names were mutated in the records and later on verifying the Fair Adangal Register and realizing that the subject land is a Gutta Poramboke, the mutation was cancelled. It is true that the respondents could not produce the Assignment Register to show that assignment was made to T.Chandramma, but not to the petitioner. However, the other overwhelming record produced establishes this fact and creates a doubt on the claim of the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner produced the copy of Pahani, said to be furnished to him, on the application filed under the Right to Information Act. However, in the light of the overwhelming record produced by the respondents, the said entry cannot be given much weight. Even otherwise such record will not confer the title on the petitioner. In Suraj Bhan's case (supra 2), the Apex Court observed thus "9. xxxx It is well settled that an entry in Revenue Records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in Record of Rights. It is settled law that entries in the Revenue Records or Jamabandi have only 'fiscal purpose' i.e., payment of land-revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0399/1994: AIR 1994 SC 1653"
(b) Added to above, the proceedings of the District Collector dated 23.07.2017 shows that on the request of the A.P. TRANSCO, Hyderabad, Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.214/1 was allotted for construction of 132/33 KV Sub Station at Mangalam and advance possession was given to the A.P. TRANSCO authorities. The remaining extent was said to be given to the Director of B.C. Welfare, Andhra Pradesh for construction of A.P. B.C. Study Circle.20
13. Thus on a conspectus of the material available on record, it must be said that the petitioner could not establish that the subject land was assigned to him by way of DKT Patta under Ex-Servicemen Quota and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, in these writ petitions his prayers cannot be considered. However, if he so advised, the petitioner can approach the competent Civil Court for establishing his title and possession over the subject land.
14. In the result, W.P. No.41446 of 2018 and W.P.No.1901 of 2019 are dismissed with the observation that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court to establish his title and possession in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.4.69 cents in Sy.No.214/1 of Chennayyagunta Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District, in which case, the said Court shall decide the matter in accordance with the governing law without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in this common order. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 27.04.2022 mva