Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 566 (AP)

Thammisetty Bodaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-04-02

T.C.D.SEKHAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : T.C.D. SEKHAR, J. 1. The petitioner is an Ex-service man, who worked in Madras Regiment for fifteen (15) years. He made an application to the 4 th respondent through proper channel i.e., Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, SPSR Nellore during the year 1992. The said application was processed and after conducting enquiry, the 4 th respondent assigned land to an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in old Sy.No.310/3, new Sy.No.310/3P2 of Poolathoa Village, Doravarisatram Mandal, Nellore District vide proceedings in F.Dis.No.229/1403, dated 08.04.1994. It is further case of the petitioner that since the date of assignment, he claims that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land by raising seasonal crops. The name of the petitioner was also mutated in revenue records and he was issued pattadar pass book. 2. It is further case of the petitioner, when he intended to sell the subject land, he came to know that the subject land is included in the prohibited properties list issued under Section 22- A of Registration Act, 1908 . Thereafter, he claims that he made application through Mee seva on 14.10.2021 seeking to delete the subject land from the prohibited properties list. As there was no action from the respondents, he filed writ petition No.5379 of 2022 before this Court, and the same was disposed of by order dated 03.03.2022 directed the respondent No.2 to consider the application filed by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after conducting due enquiry. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, he made a representation dated 15.03.2022 to the 2 nd respondent. Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent called for a report from the respondents and accordingly the 4 th respondent submitted a report dated 22.03.2022 recommending to delete the subject land from the list of prohibited properties. After receipt of the said report the 2 nd respondent by impugned proceedings dated 29.08.2022, rejected the request of the petitioner for deletion of the subject lands from prohibited properties. Questioning the said proceedings dated 29.08.2022 issued by the 2 nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed. 4. After receipt of the said report the 2 nd respondent by impugned proceedings dated 29.08.2022, rejected the request of the petitioner for deletion of the subject lands from prohibited properties. Questioning the said proceedings dated 29.08.2022 issued by the 2 nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Counter affidavit was filed stating that Sy.No.310-3 was block splited from the main survey number No.240-68 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.270.35 cents, which is classified as grazing poramboke and the subject land was assigned in favour of the petitioner under Ex-servicemen category by the 4threspondent in proceedings No.F.Dis.229/1403, dated 08.04.1994. It is further stated that the original assignment filed was not in existing in the office of the 4threspondent. It is further stated that the entries made in 10(1) register were also fabricated and there were no entries available in adangals for the Fasli 1405 onwards. It is further averred that the petitioner joined in service on 21.12.1973 and discharged on 31.12.1988, whereas the assignment was granted in the year 1994 i.e., after lapse of six (06) years from the date of discharge and therefore, the grant of assignment in favour of the petitioner is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.743 (Revenue Department), dated 30.04.1963. 5. It is further averred that originally the land was classified grazing poramboke in main Sy.No.240-68 from which the present Sy.No.310/3P2 was carved out and orders changing the classification of land from grazing poramboke to AW Dry was not available in the office to ascertain whether the land is converted from poramboke to Ayan. It is further averred that the petitioner belongs to Arthivedu Village of Prakasam District, therefore he is not entitled to D-Form patta as he does not belonged to SPSR Nellore District. 6. With the above contentions, it is stated that the assignment made in favour of the petitioner was not in accordance with the rules therefore the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered. It is further stated that the present writ petition is filed with a malafide intention to pressurize the officials so as to grab valuable government land with fabricated documents which requires prosecution of the writ petitioner for misleading the government by suppressing the real facts. 7. The petitioner filed reply affidavit reiterating the contentions made in support of the writ petition and denied the averments made in the counter affidavit. 7. The petitioner filed reply affidavit reiterating the contentions made in support of the writ petition and denied the averments made in the counter affidavit. It is further stated that since the date of discharge from service, he made several representations to the Sainik Welfare Board requesting to assign agriculture land under ex-serviceman quota. After repeated persuasions Sainik Welfare Board recommended the case of the petitioner and thereafter the 4 th respondent issued D-Form patta in his favour. It is further averred that the subject land is recorded as government land in column No.2 and in column No.14 it was recorded as darakastu. Without verifying the same, the respondents now allege that orders passed in respect of change of classification is not available in the office. It is further stated that after discharge from service, the petitioner was appointed as Security Guard in State Bank of India, Sullurpet, SPSR Nellore District and in order to settle at Sullurpet, he made an application through Sainik Welfare Board to allot land in SPSR Nellore District. It is further stated in the reply that the petitioner never mislead the Court nor suppressed the real facts and the said averments made in the counter affidavit require no consideration. 8. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 9. Perused material available on record. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was assigned land admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.No.310/3P2 of Poolathota Village, Doravarisatram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. It is also not in dispute that the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records and he was issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the land in dispute. 11. On perusal of impugned order dated 29.08.2022, it is clear that despite the recommendations made by the respondent No.4 to delete the subject land from the prohibited properties list, the same was not taken into consideration and the request of the petitioner rejected by the 2ndrespondent. The case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the original assignment filed bearing AM No.229/4/1403, dated 18.09.1994 was not available in the Tahsildar’s office and there are no entries found in DKT register. The case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the original assignment filed bearing AM No.229/4/1403, dated 18.09.1994 was not available in the Tahsildar’s office and there are no entries found in DKT register. By saying so, the 2ndrespondent did not take into consideration the factum of issuance of pattadar pass books issued in his favour and the relevant entries in revenue records, which clearly show that the petitioner was issued D-Form patta on 08.04.1994. The said factum of issuance of D-Form in favour of the petitioner was also not disputed by the respondent Nos.3 & 4. Merely because the original assignment filed relating to the petitioner is not available in the office of the 4threspondent, cannot be a ground for rejection of the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner has specifically stated that copy of the DKT patta was produced before the 2ndrespondent and apart from the same the said patta is also filed along with the present writ petition. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner was assigned the subject land under ex-servicemen quota. 12. Further yet another ground on which the case of the petitioner was rejected that orders passed in respect of change of classification from grazing poramboke to AW Dry were not available to ascertain whether the subject land is converted from poramboke to Ayan. On perusal of the counter affidavit, it is clear that the Sy.No.310/3P2 was carved out from main Sy.No.240-68 and after splitting the same the assignment was made in favour of the petitioner. The main Sy.No.240-68 was classified as grazing poramboke from which the present i.e., Sy.No.310/3P2 came into existence. The respondents did not place anything on record to show that Sy.No.310/3P2 is classified as grazing poramboke. In the absence of any evidence, the contention of the respondents that orders pertaining to change of classification is not available deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be rejected. Further, change of classification of the subject land is exclusively within the domain of the respondents and the same cannot be put against the petitioner. Once the assignment made in favour of the petitioner is admitted then it is incumbent on the part of the respondents to delete the subject lands from the prohibited properties list. 13. Further, change of classification of the subject land is exclusively within the domain of the respondents and the same cannot be put against the petitioner. Once the assignment made in favour of the petitioner is admitted then it is incumbent on the part of the respondents to delete the subject lands from the prohibited properties list. 13. Further the 2 nd respondent while dealing with the representation made by the petitioner for deleting the subject lands from the prohibited properties discussed about the alleged irregularities happened at the time of issuance of D-Form patta, even though the same is not the scope and ambit of enquiry before him, thereby the 2 nd respondent exceeded his jurisdiction while issuing the impugned proceedings. Further, if at all the D- Form patta issued in favour of the petitioner is irregular or otherwise he is not entitled to, absolutely no reasons are forthcoming as to what action was initiated against the petitioner during the relevant point of time. As long as the D-Form patta issued in favour of the petitioner is subsisting the same cannot be called for in question especially when the same is not subject matter before the 2 nd respondent. 14. Apart from the same, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Executive Fiat vide G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (Assn.I), dated 04.07.2016, whereby and where under dispensed with the procedure of issuance of NOC in cases of assignment of Ex-serviceman and freedom fighters in which a period of ten (10) years has expired. In the instant case the petitioner was granted assignment in the year 1994 and the petitioner is entitled to sell away the land assigned in his favour after a period of ten (10) years. The said period was expired during the year 2004 and as already stated supra, no action was initiated against the petitioner with regard to his entitlement or otherwise to have DKT patta. Therefore, at this distance of time, the 2 nd respondent has absolutely no jurisdiction to enter into the aspect of eligibility of the petitioner to have D-Form patta. The said period was expired during the year 2004 and as already stated supra, no action was initiated against the petitioner with regard to his entitlement or otherwise to have DKT patta. Therefore, at this distance of time, the 2 nd respondent has absolutely no jurisdiction to enter into the aspect of eligibility of the petitioner to have D-Form patta. Further, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration issued Circular vide CCLA’s Lr.No.Assn-I (1)/350/2022, dated 04.05.2022 whereby and where under it is clarified at paragraph No.6 that “no assignment made to Ex-servicemen, at any point of time, shall attract the provisions of AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, however reiterated that no alienation is permitted in case of lands assigned to Ex-serviceman/Serving Soldiers within ten (10) years of assignment.” 15. It is further clarified in the said circular that “all assignments made to Ex-serviceman, at whatever point of time were they have been made, shall be alienable ten (10) years after the date of assignment.” 16. From the above circular, it is clear that once an assignment is made, in favour of Ex-serviceman, the same shall be alienable after a period ten (10) years. In the instant case the assignment was made during the year 1994 and the period of ten (10) years was completed in 2004. Therefore, the respondents don’t have any power to deal with the assignment made in his favour in any aspect after completion of ten (10) years. Further, after a period of ten (10) years from the date of assignment, the lands assigned will loose the character of government land and it would become the absolute property of the person to whom it was assigned. Further it is not out of place to mention that, the lands assigned to Ex-servicemen cannot be equated with that of the land assigned to landless poor persons, inasmuch as, assignment made in favour of Ex-serviceman is to see that, his life is secured after his discharge from Army and apart from the same, he is entitled to such assignment as a matter of right for the services rendered by him to the country, whereas, the assignment made in favour of landless poor is on a different footing so as to provide him livelihood. 17. 17. It is pertinent to mention that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.1117, Revenue (Assignment.I) Department dated 11.11.1993 in partial modification to G.O.Ms.No.743 (B) Department dated 30.04.1963 making it further clear that after a period of ten (10) years from the date of assignment made in favour of Ex-Servicemen, they are free to sell away the lands assigned in their favour. From the said G.O. it is clear that a concession is given to the Ex-Serviceman to alienate the lands assigned to them after completion of ten (10) years. Admittedly in the present case the assignment was made during the year 1994 whereas the impugned order was passed on 29.08.2022 rejecting the case of the petitioner by ignoring G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993 through which G.O.Ms.No.743, dated 30.04.1963 was modified. From the above, the 2 nd respondent without properly appreciating the case on hand and without considering the report submitted by the respondent No.4 and circular dated 04.05.2022 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration passed impugned order in Rc.E2/1420/2022, dated 29.08.2022 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 18. For the above reasons, the order passed by the 2 nd respondent in Rc.E2/1420/2022, dated 29.08.2022 is hereby set aside and the 2 nd respondent is directed to forthwith delete the subject land in prohibited properties list issued under Section 22- A of Registration Act, 1908 i.e., land admeasuring an extent Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.No.310/3P2 of Poolathota Village, Doravarisatram Mandal, Nellore District. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.