IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. Sujatha, J.
A. Rajasekhar - Petitioner
Versus
State Of A.P., PRL.SCY, Revenue, Guntur, 3 - Respondent
Writ Petition No.36283 of 2016
Decided On : 21-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Registration Act, 1908 – Section 22-A (1) – Favour of vendor – Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking relief – Whether 4th respondent can refuse to entertain document for registration on ground that land in question is a prohibited land (assigned land), when said land was alienated by Government in favour of vendor of petitioner in on payment of market value – Held, It is very clear that vendor of petitioner i.e. Integrated Community Development Society, Purchased land from Government on payment of market value and thereupon said land would become purely a private land, when 4th respondent insisted for a NOC during sale transactions made in favour of petitioner and in pursuance of interference of this Court, 4th respondent executed document in favour of petitioner to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents and thereafter, when petitioner intended to sell same in favour of third parties, 4th respondent refusing said transaction on ground that it is a Government assigned land prohibited for registration under Section 22-A(1) of Registration Act, 1908, is totally illegal and without application of mind – Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
2. The brief facts of the case are that originally the land to an extent of Ac.4-86 cents situated at Sy.No.1248 of Tallapaka Village, Rajampet Mandal is a Government land. Pursuant to proceedings in Rc.No.B7/379/95, dated 16.08.1995, the 2nd respondent-District Collector issued proceedings stating that the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad issued proceedings No.Spl.B4.2057/93-I, dated 19.07.1993, to alienate the said extent of land in favour of Integrated Community Development Society, Rajampet on payment of market value of Rs.2,500/- per acre. Accordingly, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajampet to handover the land in question to the above referred Society on payment of market value and further directed to take necessary changes in village and mandal accounts and report compliance. On 17.05.2004, a No Objection Certificate was issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of the vendor of the petitioner stating that all necessary changes in revenue record was taken place and certified the possession and enjoyment of the vendor of the petitioner. Thereafter, the pattadar passbook and title deed were also issued to the said Society.
3. On 15.10.2012, the vendor of the petitioner passed a resolution to sell away an extent of Ac.3-00 cents to the perspective and intending buyers so as to clear the debts of the society. When the 4th respondent insisted for a no objection certificate from the revenue authorities by refusing to register the document, the petitioner’s vendor filed W.P.No.32841 of 2012 which was disposed of on 17.10.2012 directing the registration authorities to receive and process the same for registration, without insisting for NOC. In pursuance of the said orders passed by this Court, a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by admitting it into registration on 03.12.2012 vide document No.44/2013 by the said Society/vendor of the petitioner.
4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that from the date of alienation of the land in favour of the vendor of the petitioner in the year 1993, the said land becomes private land and is in possession and enjoyment of private individuals. While the matter being so, the 4th respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 21.07.2016 pursuant to presentation of the document by the petitioner for registration stating that the said land was in prohibitory list and hence, it is not maintainable. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed.
5. The 3rd respondent filed counter admitting the fact of alienation of the said land in favour of the President, Integrated Community Development Society, Tallapaka Village and also handing over the possession of the land on 03.09.1993 and as well as issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the said Society. But however, he has stated that aggrieved by the action of the authorities alienating the land in favour of the President, Integrated Community Development Society (I.C.D.S.), one Sri T.Gangi Reddy of Tallapaka Village, filed a petition on 22.11.1993 before the then Hon’ble Minister for Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad with a request to quash th
Prohibition for assignment of these lands under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 is not attracted to the said land since the alienations were made by the ex-servicemen more....
Assigned land sold in auction by Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society is ceased to be assigned land on its sale.
The absence of a non-alienation clause in the original land assignment means it cannot be classified as assigned land under the A.P. Assigned Lands Act, allowing for its registration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that authorities must establish that land is assigned with a condition prohibiting alienation before initiating proceedings under the A.P. Assigned....
Registering authorities must register documents presented if procedural requirements are satisfied, regardless of ownership disputes, ensuring compliance with the Registration Act and securing justic....
Once a beneficiary has been granted absolute rights through a sale deed, these rights should not be infringed upon based on subsequent restrictions, such as non-alienation or transfer.
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.