Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1455 (AP)

State Of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Lakshmi Theresamma

2024-10-16

HARINATH.N, R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT : The husband of the respondent, who had served in the Armed Forces between 1944 to 1961 is said to have been assigned land admeasuring Ac.4.59 cents in Sy.No.371/1 of Kapuluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The said survey number is said to have been carved out of Sy.No.314 of the said village. 2. Thereafter, the husband of the respondent had made multiple attempts to obtain mutation and passbooks. Apart from this, the husband of the respondent had also sought to sell away the land. As his applications for mutation and issuance of patta pass books were not being processed and as the sale deeds presented by the respondent were not being received by the registration authorities, the husband of the respondent had been approaching this Court, by way of various writ petitions including W.P.No.30568 of 2010, W.P.No.33225 of 2011 and W.P.No.24159 of 2016. In all these writ petitions, this Court had been directing the authorities to consider the case of the respondent for issuance of patta pass books as well as permission for sale of the property. As her husband had passed away, the petitoner, as his heir, has been pursuing the litigation. 3. The revenue authorities have, for various reasons, been rejecting the said applications filed by the respondent. In the circumstances, the respondent moved W.P.No.19878 of 2022 seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to set aside the latest endorsement dated 23.05.2022 rejecting the application of the respondent for issuance of an N.O.C for sale of the aforesaid land. A learned single judge of this Court, after hearing both sides had disposed of the writ petition, by way of an order dated 04.11.2024, set aside the earlier order of rejection dated 12.11.2021 with a further direction to the authorities to consider the request of the respondent for issuance of an N.O.C in accordance with the directions in W.P.No.24159 of 2016 as also the circular instructions dated 04.05.2022 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the revenue authorities had filed the present appeal. 5. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the revenue authorities had filed the present appeal. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that the circular dated 04.05.2022, on which the learned single judge had placed reliance, was not applicable to the facts of the case as the revenue authorities did not have records to show that the land had been assigned to the husband of the respondent. The further contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the patta produced by the respondent cannot be accepted as there is no corresponding record available with the authorities and the same had also been recorded in the earlier endorsement dated 23.05.2022. 6. Sri A. Koti Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there have been various occasions where the revenue authorities did not have adequate records showing the earlier assignment of lands. He would submit that the State having recognized this lacuna, had issued a circular dated 451 of 2022. This circular issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration dealt with the issue of non availability of the assignment records in the following manner: 5. In some cases physical possession and ex-serviceman status are available along with other corroborative evidences, but the DR file is missing. Hence there is inability to take a decision in above cases. When the ex-serviceman is in physical possession and when ex-serviceman status is available along with other corroborative evidences, but the DR file is missing, the assignee shall be treated as an ex-serviceman and shall be allowed to sell the land after ten years from the date of assignment. 7. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, an implead petition bearing I.A.No.3 of 2024 has been file by a person claiming to be an assignee of the very same land. 8. Sri C.B. Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the implead petitioner would submit that the implead petitioner is a necessary party as he had always been impleaded in the earlier rounds of litigation whereas he was not included in the present round of litigation. He would submit that the implead petitioner had been granted a D-form patta way back in the year 1981 in relation to land in Sy.No.314 part which correlates to Survey No.371/1 and relies upon correlation survey said to have issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the year 1986. 9. He would submit that the implead petitioner had been granted a D-form patta way back in the year 1981 in relation to land in Sy.No.314 part which correlates to Survey No.371/1 and relies upon correlation survey said to have issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the year 1986. 9. Learned counsel for the implead petitioner would submit that the patta produced by the implead petitioner is a genuine patta and the land was assigned to the implead petitioner. 10. Sri A. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, in reply to these submissions, would contend that the claim of the implead petitioner had been rejected by the Collector of the District, by his proceedings dated 20.05.2016. He would further draw the attention of this Court to the contents of the said proceedings wherein the Collector had specifically stated that the said proceedings had been issued in compliance of directions of this Court in W.P.No.21523 of 2014, filed by the implead petitioner seeking an earlier disposal of his application for issuance of N.O.C for sale of the very same land. Sri A. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent would draw the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in W.A.No.890 of 2021. This Writ Appeal was filed by the implead petitioner. In this counter affidavit, the respondent specifically mentioned the proceedings of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, dated 20.05.2016, rejecting the application of the implead petitioner. On the basis of this record, Sri A. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the implead petitioner has no right or claim of any nature as the order of rejection of the District Collector dated 20.05.2016 has not been challenged by the implead petitioner at any stage and the same has become final. 11. The issues raised by the learned Government Pleader, in the present appeal are questions of fact which require to be ascertained by the primary authority. In the circumstances, the judgment of the learned single judge remanding the matter back to the District Collector is the appropriate order which does not require any interference by this Court. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Appeal is dismissed that the time granted to the District Collector for passing appropriate orders being extended by period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 13. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Appeal is dismissed that the time granted to the District Collector for passing appropriate orders being extended by period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 13. In view of the aforesaid observations, the implead petition bearing I.A.No.1 of 2023 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.