Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman, enrolled on 29.09.1983 and served Indian Army as Combatant and was discharged from service voluntarily on 30.06.2014 with unblemished record. On his application to 4th respondent for allotment of land at Pagali Village under Ex-serviceman quota, 4th respondent allotted him Ac.3.48 cents in S.No.171/1 and Ac.1.18 cents in S.No.171/2 totalling Ac.4.66 cents in Pagali Village, Yerpedu Mandal vide DKT Patta No.53/4/1416 dated 28.08.2006 (wrongly mentioned as 222/4/1418 dated 09.08.2008) in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993. Ever since the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land and he was issued pattadar passbook and title deed also.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. The 4th respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition inter alia contending thus:

Originally the land in S.No.130 in an extent of Ac.217.28 cents was classified as Taka Adavi (UAW) Poramboke as per Fair Adangal of Pagali Village. Thereafter, the said survey number was split up into Sy.Nos.155 to 188 for eventual assignments. Verification of records shows that the writ petitioner was granted assignment vide Office DKT Patta 53/4/1416 dated 28.08.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner was discharged from military service in the year 2014 which implies that he obtained the DKT patta 8 years prior to the date of his discharge. This is against the procedure laid down in G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department dated 30.04.1963. As per the said G.O., the applicant for grant of assignment under Ex-serviceman quota has to submit an application, which should be routed through Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer to the District Collector, who has to forward the same to concerned Tahsildar for taking further action. Further, the application for grant of assignment has to be submitted within 12 months from the date of discharge of the Ex-serviceman. However, in the instant case the application was filed 8 years prior to the discharge of the petitioner and the same was not routed through the proper channel. Hence, it is clear that the assignment was made irregularly without following due process of law. On that ground, permission cannot be granted to the petitioner to alienate the land. Even otherwise, the assignment made in favour of the petitioner is taken as normal DKT patta assignment, even then the assignment is not valid because the petitioner was not a landless poor person and not coming under BPL (below the poverty line) as he was a military employee during the relevant time.

Hence, on that ground also he was not entitled to get DKT patta which is liable to be cancelled under BSO 15(18). Considering these aspects the subject land was kept in prohibitory property list published under Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act. The 4th respondent eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. The 5th respondent also filed counter opposing the writ petition on the main ground that since the subject property was an assigned land and placed in the prohibitory list under Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, registration was refused.

5. Heard Sri A.M.Krishna, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration representing the 1st respondent, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents 2 to 5.

6. During the arguments, both the counsel reiterated their respective pleadings.

7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow?

8. Point: The admitted facts in this case are that the petitioner worked in Indian Army as Combatant between 29.09.1983 and 30.06.2014. It is also an admitted fact that on his application 4th respondent has granted him the land of Ac.3.48 cents in S.No.171/1 and Ac.1.18 cents in S.No.171/2 totalling Ac.4.66 cents in Pagali Village, Yerpedu Mandal vide DKT Patta No.53/4/1416 dated 28.08.2006. It is also an admitted fact that by the time DKT patta was issued in the year 2006 the petitioner was still in military service and not discharged. Owing to these facts it is contended by the Revenue that the subject land was not assigned to him under Ex-serviceman quota, but it was a regular assignment and therefore, the concession given to the Ex-serviceman to alienate their respective assigned lands 10 years after the assignment is not applicable to the petitioner. It is also contended that the application of the petitioner was not routed through Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer to the District Collector and then to the Tahsildar for enquiry and due to all these procedural violations also, patta of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled. The above argument though apparently sounds laudable, however, legally it is hollow. As already stated supra, admittedly the petitioner was in military service by the time the DKT patta was issued to him. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner suppressed the fact that he was in military service and obtained DKT patta by projecting himself as a landless poor or as a person below the poverty line. On the other hand, on the top of the DKT patta, a copy of which is filed along with material papers, it is written as Ex-serviceman in telugu. It implies that the petitioner must have applied for assigning land to him and after enquiry having found that he was in military service, the Revenue Department might have assigned the land which is earmarked under the quota of Ex- serviceman. As otherwise, the petitioner being an employee cannot claim himself as landless poor or as a person below the poverty line. So the circumstances would show that the petitioner was assigned the land under the quota of Ex-serviceman in the year 2006. Not only that he was issued pattadar passbook and title deed, the copies of which are filed along with material papers. So when once the land was assigned to the petitioner under the quota of Ex-serviceman, it does not now lie in the mouth of the revenue to contend that the land was assigned to him while he was in service and therefore, the assignment cannot be treated as the one for Ex-serviceman. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of the common High Court for Andhra Pradesh, in its order dated 29.08.2018 in W.A.No.1029/2017 while discarding the argument of the Revenue that the assignment made in favour of the petitioners was not under Ex-serviceman quota but the same was a regular assignment, observed thus: