ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
D. Ramesh, J.
C. Linga Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3493 of 2022
Decided On : 01-07-2022
{'KEYWORD': 'LAND DISPUTE - REGISTRATION - RULE 9(1)(C)(II) OF ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS RULES, 1989', 'SUBJECT': 'DISPUTED LAND REGISTER', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['RULE 9(1)(C)(II) OF ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS RULES, 1989']}
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the owner of the subject land, purchased it from an Ex-Serviceman in 2021. He was issued a pattadar passbook and his name was reflected in revenue records. In 2022, he noticed that the subject land was marked as 'Digitally Not Signed' or 'Red Mark' in the webland. He challenged this action, arguing that it was illegal and arbitrary, and that he was not given any notice or opportunity to be heard before the decision was made.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's property was placed in the disputed land register without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989. This action was held to be illegal and arbitrary.
Issues: Whether the action of the respondents in marking the subject land with Red Colour, without issuing any notice or opportunity before taking decision, was illegal and arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the words 'a notice to all persons known or believed to be interested to the effect that the registry will be made' assumes importance in the present case. According to the petitioner, no notice was issued to this petitioner, the respondents also did not dispute the contention of petitioner about failure to issue notice. Therefore, on the ground of violation of procedure prescribed under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii), the order challenged is liable to be set-aside, without further going into the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order placing the petitioner's property in the disputed register, declaring the action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary.
JUDGMENT
D. Ramesh, J. - This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
'.....to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs Order or Direction declaring the action of Respondents in keeping the property belonging to the petitioner i.e land admeasuring Ac. 1.87 cents in Old S. No. 62/1 (Re S. No 69/1B) situated at Maroor Village Fields, Gollapalli Panchayat, Rapthadu Mandal, Ananthapuram District, in the category of 'Digitally Not Signed' i.e. 'Red Mark' as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of Art. 300-A of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith delete the above property from the category of 'Digitally Not Signed' and see that the same is kept in the 'Digitally Signed List' forthwith and also not to evict the petitioner from the above land.......'
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the subject land having purchased the same through Registered Sale Deed dated 15.06.2021. Originally, the subject land was assigned to one G. Venkataswamy, who is an Ex-Serviceman on 10.01.2009. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. He was issued pattadar passbook and his name is reflected in revenue records also. In December, 2021, some of the local politicians, approached and pressurized the petitioner to sell the above land. Thereafter, the officials of the 4th respondent visited the subject land in January, 2021 and directed to vacate the land. In February, 2022, on verification of the webland, he noticed that the subject land was kept in the category of 'Digitally not signed' i.e. red mark. As per G.O. Ms. No. 279 dated 04.07.2016, NOC is dispensed with from the authorities for sale of the properties, which were signed to army personnel. After ten years, the vendor of the petitioner purchased the land from G. Venkataswamy, who is an Ex-Serviceman. He also issued a notice to the 4th respondent on 20.01.2022 requesting to delete the subject land from 'Digitally not signed' i.e. red mark. The District Registrar also deleted this land from the list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Questioning the action of the respondents in marking the subject land with Red Colour, without issuing any notice or opportunity before taking decision, the present writ petition is filed
3. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the subject property of the petitioner is kept under disputed land register. Keeping the property in disputed register is not in quarrel.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that, since the dispute is pending before the competent court, the property is kept in the disputed land register. He has drawn attention of this Court to Rule 9(1)(iv) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, where the Recording Authority shall not pass any order for the change of registry or splitting of joint pattas, unless the recording authority is satisfied that the change of registry or splitting of joint patta is not in contravention of any of the provisions of: (1) The Andhra Pradesh and Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural) Holdings Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973); (2) The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act 33 of 1976); (3) The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (9 of 1977).
5. In view of Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, in respect of cases falling under Rule 9(1)(a)(i), the Mandal Revenue Officer shall hold a summary enquiry as to who has the right to succeed to the property of the deceased registered holder, according to the principles of the Law of Succession which govern the case and give notice to all persons known or believed to be interested to the effect that the registry will be made in the name of the person found to be entitled, unless a decl
The court held that placing the property of this petitioner in disputed register without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) is an illegality and the same is liable to be set-....
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.