HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
P. NAVEEN RAO, J.
Voonna Bangaraju & Others
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 1339 of 2014, 1348, 1785, 1786, 2804, 2811, 2829 & 6316 of 2014
Decided On: 06-03-2014
Result-Writ Petitions disposed of.
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing Counsel for Municipality, these Writ Petitions are disposed of at the admission stage.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are the owners and purchasers of the properties situated in Town Survey Nos. 159/2 and 162/2 of Salur Village and Municipality, Vizianagaram District. The registering authority refused to receive the deed of conveyance of the said properties on the ground that the properties are described in the revenue records as poramboke and prohibited for registration and the same was communicated to the Sub-Registrar. Hence, these writ petitions.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing Counsel for Municipality.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is illegal to classify the land in Town Survey No. 159/2 and 162/2 of Salur Municipality as poramboke land and refusing registration. He submits that Salur is a town and residential houses have come up long ago. Several transactions have taken place over the years. This Court allowed several writ petitions overruling the objection of respondents but respondents continue to raise the same objection causing untold agony and suffering to petitioners.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that as revenue records show the status of land as poramboke, the objection was validly raised and petitioners are not entitled to undertake deeds of conveyance on such lands.
6. Learned Standing Counsel produced the counter filed by Municipality in W.P. No. 23634 of 2012.
7. In W.P. No. 23634 of 2012, Salur Municipality filed counter-affidavit stating that there are no records which can establish that the lands in Survey Nos. 159/2 and 162/2 are Government lands. On the contrary, several permanent structures were built up by the private individuals in the lands in question from the year 1950 onwards, even before the village was upgraded to that of Municipality. The said buildings were assessed for collecting property tax.
8. On a representation by residents of Salur Municipality, the Sub-Registrar, Salur, Vizianagaram District vide endorsement No. Nil 2012 dated 30.06.2012, informed them that on verification of the records and as per intimation received from Government, the land is shown as Gramakantam. It is thus seen that there is no clarity with reference to the status of the land in these two survey numbers. As per the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar dated 30.06.2012, the land is described as Gramakantam and as per the counter-affidavit filed in W.P. No. 23634 of 2012 on behalf of Salur Municipality, there are no records to establish the lands in these survey numbers as Government lands. Different authorities have taken different stands. The fact remains that Salur has grown into a full fledged town and several residential properties have come up on these lands over a period of time. Except for taking paper objection and inviting an order from the Court, no serious endeavour is made to resolve the controversy.
9. Gramakantam is not a Government land and there is no prohibition to undertake transactions on the said lands. In fact, Gramakantam describes the area identified for the purpose of construction of residential houses and incidental structures in a village. It is neither a Government land nor land vested in the village panchayat. This village has now grown into a town and is governed by a Municipality.
10. The land in these two survey numbers was the subject matter in several writ petitions and this Court has passed orders directing the registering authority to receive and process the deed of conveyance.
11. In W.P. No. 23634 of 2012 and batch, this Court rejected the stand taken by the respondent Municipality that the land belongs to Municipality. This Court held that:
“At the hearing, it is submitted that the pro
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.