IMPORTANT POINT
The assignment of land prior to 1954 is not subject to non-alienation, thus properties assigned before this date cannot be included in the prohibited list under Section 22-A.

ORDER :

Impugning the endorsement issued by the Joint Collector vide Rc.No.1618/2019/E1 dated 27.09.2020, the above writ petition is filed.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that originally Jalli Atchayya was assigned land of an extent of Ac.4-51 cents in survey No.676 of Balighattam Village, in 1921. Said Jalli Atchayya, along with his sons mortgaged the property to one G. Appalanaidu, in the year, 1931 and later alienated the property to one Setti Kannaya, under an unregistered sale deed, in the year, 1952, who, in turn, along with his sons alienated Ac.1-00, Ac.2-51 cents and Ac.1-00 cents in survey No.676-2 in favour of the petitioners under registered documents bearing Nos.2744 of 2005, 2742 of 2005 and 2743 of 2005 respectively. The names of the petitioners were updated in the Records of Rights. They were also issued title deeds vide patta Nos.636, 631, and 1687 respectively. Subsequently, the aforementioned lands were included in the prohibited list of properties under Section 22(A)(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). Therefore, petitioners made an application vide application No.TTA0118000032165 and sought deletion of the property from the list of prohibited properties and the same was rejected vide impugned endorsement. Earlier, the request made by one S. Krishna Babu to de-notify the land admeasuring Ac.4-51 cents in survey No.676/2 of Baligattam Village from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act, was rejected by the District Collector, vide proceedings in Computer No.31532/2017/E1 dated 10.02.2019. Later Joint Collector by the proceedings impugned rejected the claim of the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Separate counter affidavits were filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 4, and 5.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it was contended that the request made by the petitioners does not come under the purview of G.O.Ms.No.575 Revenue (Assignment-1) Department dated 16.11.2018. Though the authority has not disputed the assignment of land in favour of Jalli Atchayya, it was concluded that there is no document available regarding the transfer of land from Jalli Atchayya to Setti Kannayya. Though Setti Kannyya’s name was shown as Pattadar, he was considered an encroacher. Setti Kannyya’s name has been recorded from 1967 onwards. There is no substantial evidence to show that Jalli Atchayya sold said land to Setti Kannayya.

5. Though a separate counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4, the same is nothing but a reiteration of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2.

6. The authorities eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Heard Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Dilip Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents Nos.1 to 5.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the assignment of land, in favour of Jalli Atchayya, was made in the year, 1921, i.e. before 1954, rejecting the petitioners’ application seeking deletion of the property from the list of prohibited properties, is illegal and arbitrary. He would further submit that survey Nos.675 to 696 of Ballighattam village, were carved out from survey No.301 and land in survey No.301 is recorded as Government land. He would further submit that the Record of Holdings reflects the name of Jalli Atchayya against Ac.1-80 cents and Ac.3-22 cents of land in survey Nos.676/1 and 676/2. The encumbrance, in the Record of Holdings, reflected the name of Jalli Atchayya and G. Appalanaidu(mortgagee). Thus, he would submit that since the assignment was made in the year, 1921, the property ought not have been included in the prohibited list of properties, under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Act.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader reiterated the contentions as per the averments of the counter-affidavits.

10. The point for consideration is whether the endorsement issued by the Joint Collector vide Rc.No.1618