Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 370 (AP)

P. Rama Mohan v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2019-12-11

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2019
ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the document in P. 135/2018 by registering the same presented by the petitioner as illegal and for a consequential direction. 2. The petitioner's case is that the land in an extent of Acres 4.93 cents in Survey Nos. 304/4, 5, 6, 7 and 304/2B situated in Vikruthamala Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District, was assigned to his mother under ex-serviceman quota as a Widow of ex-service man vide DKT No. 39/4/1408, dated 10.08.1998 with a condition not to alienate the land for a period of ten years from the date of assignment. After her death, the petitioner has succeeded the said land. When the petitioner tried to sell the land to third parties, the Sub-Registrar refused on the ground that the land was included in the list of Government lands and insisted to obtain no objection certificate (NOC). G.O. Ms. No. 279, Revenue (Assign. I) Department, dated 04.07.2016, clearly spells out that the procedure of issuing of "NOC" is dispensed with holding that there was no need to obtain "NOC" in case of assignment to the ex-servicemen and freedom fighters where a period of 10 years has expired and where there is no dispute on the land with the Government. In that view, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 25764 of 2016. This Court, in its order dated 27.08.2016, having regard to its previous order in W.P. No. 23523 of 2016, directed the respondents to receive the documents presented for registration and process the same, if it is otherwise in order. (b) Petitioner's further case is that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner submitted the sale deed to 2nd respondent, who admitted the same and kept the registration in pending by assigning the number as P. 135/2018. Hence, the present writ petition for giving a direction to 2nd respondent. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for the respondents. 4. Referring to G.O. Ms. No. 279, Revenue (Assign. I) Department, dated 04.07.2016, learned counsel for petitioner would strenuously argue that when the land is assigned under ex-servicemen quota, the restriction of alienation is imposed only for a period of ten years and thereafter, the assignee or his successors can alienate the assigned land without any hindrance. 4. Referring to G.O. Ms. No. 279, Revenue (Assign. I) Department, dated 04.07.2016, learned counsel for petitioner would strenuously argue that when the land is assigned under ex-servicemen quota, the restriction of alienation is imposed only for a period of ten years and thereafter, the assignee or his successors can alienate the assigned land without any hindrance. For that purpose, they do not require NOC. He would thus argue that the act of 2nd respondent in keeping the document pending in spite of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 25764 of 2016 is illegal and unjust. 5. This Court finds force in the above arguments. The respondents have not disputed the factum of writ petition mentioned lands assigned to the mother of the petitioner under ex-serviceman quota vide DKT No. 39/4/1408, dated 10.08.1998. So far as alienability of lands assigned under ex-servicemen quota, G.O. Ms. No. 279, Revenue (Assign. I) Department, dated 04.07.2016 reads thus: "6. Accordingly, Government after careful examination of the matter, issue the following orders in supersession of the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 307, Revenue (Assn. I) Department, dt. 06.06.2013:- (i) The procedure of issuing "NOC" shall be dispense with. There shall be no need for obtaining "NOC" in all cases of assignment of Ex-Servicemen and Freedom Fighters in which a period of 10 years has expired and there is no dispute on the land with the Government. (ii) All such cases without dispute shall be deleted from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908 and furnished to the Registration Department. (iii) In respect of cases in which there is a dispute with Government about the genuineness of the assignment or otherwise a list of such cases shall be prepared by District Collector and furnished to Registration Department by following the procedure U/Sec. 22-A. The Sub-Registrar shall enter the details of such disputed lands in the online records deleting all other lands in which there is no dispute. 7. The Spl.C.S. & Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and the District Collectors shall take further necessary action accordingly in the matter." 6. Thus, the law is very much clear about the alienability of the land. This Court in fact considering the G.O. Ms. No. 279, directed the respondents to receive the document presented for registration and process the same. 7. The Spl.C.S. & Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and the District Collectors shall take further necessary action accordingly in the matter." 6. Thus, the law is very much clear about the alienability of the land. This Court in fact considering the G.O. Ms. No. 279, directed the respondents to receive the document presented for registration and process the same. The said order was passed in terms of its earlier order in W.P. No. 23523 of 2016. Be that it may, it appears when the document was presented by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent after receiving the same, kept the document under pending registration No. P135/2018 and addressed a letter dated 07.03.2018 to Tahsildar, Yerpedu, enquiring him that in view of the instructions in C & I.G. Cir. Memo No. G1/8306/2010, dated 20.04.2011, whether the revenue department have preferred any appeal/revision against the order of the single judge in W.P. No. 25764 of 2016 and any stay orders were granted and if so, a copy of the stay order may be furnished to him. It appears, even long period thereafter, the 2nd respondent did not receive any communication from the revenue department, Chittoor. Thus, in view of G.O. Ms. No. 279, divulging in clear tone that no NOC shall be insisted for alienation of the lands assigned under the ex-servicemen quota and also in view of no response received from the Tahsildar, Erpedu, the 2nd respondent is obligated to register the document submitted by the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent to register the document i.e. P/135/2018 submitted by the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.