Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1432 (AP)

S. Usha Rani v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2014-11-27

P.NAVEEN RAO

body2014
ORDER 1. Sri M. Krishnaiah and S. Rajagopal were assigned lands to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy. No. 38 1/2 and Ac.3.65 cents in Sy. No. 380/3 of Urandur Village of Srikalahasthr Mandal respectively. The said assignees obtained loans from Kapugunneri Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society by mortgaging the above said lands. They became defaulters as the amount borrowed from the Bank was not paid. An award was passed against them in Case Nos. 83/2006-07 dated 01-05-2006 and 82/2006-07 dated 30-04-2006 respectively. The said awards were executed in E.P. Nos. 120/2006-07 and 121/2006-07 respectively by conducting sale of above lands by the Chittoor District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Chittoor. Petitioner was the successful bidder. The sale was confirmed in her favour on 06-06-2008. In spite of confirmation of sale, as petitioner was not given the Sale Certificates, petitioner filed W.P. No. 19194 of 2011 before this Court. This Court by Order dated 21-11-2011, made in W.P.M.P. No. 23179 of 2011 in W.P. No. 19194 of 2011, directed issuance of Sale Certificates for the above lands. In pursuance to the directions of this Court, Sale Certificates were issued in the petitioner. On 09-05-2013, petitioner sold an extent of Ac.1.75 cents in Sy. No. 380/3 and the sale was registered by document No. 1596 of 2013. In order to obtain Bank loan by mortgaging the above properties, petitioner requested the Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti (3rd respondent) to provide valuation certificates for the subject lands. The 3rd respondent refused to give valuation certificates and orally informed the petitioner that the subject lands are assigned lands. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed. Counter-affidavit is filed by he 3rd respondent. The deponent does not deny the factum of submission of representation. He justifies the action of not giving the valuation certificates on the ground that as per the list communicated by the Tahsildar, Srikalahasthi, vide his letter dated 23-03-2012 in Roc. No. A/1113/2011, the lands claimed by the petitioner are classified as assigned lands and prohibited from registration. 2. Separate counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of other respondents deposed by V. Veeraswamy, Tahsildar, Srikalahasthi Mandal. The factum of assignment of lands to S. Rajagopal and M. Krishnaiah are admitted. No. A/1113/2011, the lands claimed by the petitioner are classified as assigned lands and prohibited from registration. 2. Separate counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of other respondents deposed by V. Veeraswamy, Tahsildar, Srikalahasthi Mandal. The factum of assignment of lands to S. Rajagopal and M. Krishnaiah are admitted. However, it is contended that as assignees have not brought the assigned lands under cultivation within a period of three years from the date of assignment as per the conditions imposed in the "D" form patta, an extent of Ac. 155.80 cents of land in respect of 45 assignees including the above named persons was resumed vide his proceedings Roc. No. B/333/2003, dated 23-06-2003. These proceedings are challenged in W.P. No. 19757 of 2008. This Court by Order dated 11-09-2008 directed to maintain status quo. It is contended that the above Writ Petition was dismissed insofar as the petitioner Nos. 27 and 28 i.e., S. Rajagopal and M. Krishnaiah, are concerned. The mortgaging of the above lands by those assignees and they are defaulters in payment of loans borrowed, passing of award, conducting of auction and purchase of properties by the petitioner in the auction conducted by the District Co-operative Central Bank are not denied. However, the stand of the respondents is, as the subject lands were classified as A.W. dry lands, classification remains, even though, it was purchased by the petitioner in the open auction and the lands are always to be treated as Government lands. 3. But for the contention that the assignment earlier granted was cancelled in the year 2003, by virtue of purchase of the lands made by the petitioner in the open auction conducted by the District Co-operative Central Bank due to default of payment of loans borrowed by the assignees, the lands vest in the petitioner and she has become the absolute owner and she is entitled to deal with the lands as if they are private patta lands. 4. The cancellation of assignment was challenged by the assignees in W.P. No. 19757 of 2008. Two assignees whose lands were purchased by the petitioner are respondent Nos. 27 and 28 i.e., S. Rajagopal and M. Krishnaiah, in the above writ petition. To verify the assertion of the respondents in the counter-affidavit deposed by V. Veeraswamy, original record of the above writ petition is called and verified. Two assignees whose lands were purchased by the petitioner are respondent Nos. 27 and 28 i.e., S. Rajagopal and M. Krishnaiah, in the above writ petition. To verify the assertion of the respondents in the counter-affidavit deposed by V. Veeraswamy, original record of the above writ petition is called and verified. As seen from the record, the writ petition was not dismissed insofar as the respondent Nos. 27 and 28. All the 30 petitioners in the writ petition prosecuted the writ petition. The writ petition was finally disposed of by judgment dated 01-07-2014. The writ petition is ordered by directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in assigned lands. Thus, the assignment earlier granted becomes valid by the time the properties were put for sale and when petitioner purchased. 5. With reference to the status of the land, which was originally classified as assigned land, as a consequence to the assignees becoming defaulters and the land having been purchased in an open auction conducted by the Bank is no more res integra. This issue was considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Sub-Registrar and Another vs. K. Guravaiah S/o. Chalamaiah and Another, 2009 (3) ALT 85 (DB): 2009 (2) ALD 250 (DB) (W.A. No. 950 of 2007 dated 30-12-2008). This Court held as under: "19. Let us consider the provisions of Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act in the light of the facts of the present case. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, it was open to the original assignees of the land to mortgage the land to the bank by virtue of the definition of Section 2(1). If the mortgage in favour of the bank was not alienation, there was no restriction with regard to mortgaging the assigned land in favour of the bank. Thus, the mortgage was valid. As the mortgage money was not repaid to the bank, the bank sold the land after following due process of law and thereby the petitioner became a lawful owner of the land in question. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, provisions of Section 5 would not operate because the prohibition is on registration of any document relating to transfer or creation of any interest in assigned land. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, provisions of Section 5 would not operate because the prohibition is on registration of any document relating to transfer or creation of any interest in assigned land. In the instant case, the transaction in pursuance of which the land had been purchased by the petitioner was valid and not contrary to the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act. In such a case, in our opinion, if the concerned party had approached the District Collector for obtaining prior permission, the District Collector was bound to accord necessary permission in favour of the person seeking such permission. At the most, the authorities could have approached the District Collector for seeking permission under Section 5 and in that event, the District Collector was bound to give permission in view of the fact that the bank, admittedly a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, could have become a mortgagee in respect of the assigned land." (Emphasis supplied) 6. In view of the fact that the petitioner was the purchaser of the land in an open auction conducted by the Bank on account of default of the borrowers, who were assignees, the original status of the land as assigned land loses its character. It becomes private patta land and petitioner is entitled to deal with the land as deemed fit by her. Therefore, the action of the Sub-Registrar in refusing to grant the market value on the above said lands is held as illegal. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District (3rd respondent), is directed to issue valuation certificates for the purpose of registering the transactions and to obtain Bank loans for the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy. No. 38 1/2 and Ac. 1.90 cents in Sy. No. 380/3 of Urandur Village of Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor district, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. Petition allowed.