Point of Law : Wherever there is no specific evidence that assignments of lands were made subsequent to the issuance of G.O.Ms., benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the parties who intend to transfer lands.

ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the Memo No.E3/4815/2012, dated 01.04.2013 issued by the 1st respondent, District Collector, holding that the subject patta land of the petitioner in Sy.No.49 to an extent of Acs.11.23 cents (Acs.11.09 guntas), situated at Battisawargaon village, Adilabad Mandal and District, as arbitrary and illegal.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land vide patta No.193 issued under the A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971. It is submitted that originally the land in Sy.No.49 to an extent of Acs.13.09 guntas was in occupation of one Mr. Neerati Chinna Ganga, who is pattedar since 1953. The petitioner purchased the subject land through registered sale deed vide document No.94/1971 dated 16.02.1971 from Mr. Neerati Chinna Ganga. Out of total subject land, the petitioner, after obtaining layout approval from the Gram Panchayat vide proceedings dated 11.04.1980, made an extent of Acs.6.00 into 52 plots and sold 50 plots to third parties through the registered sale deeds between 1982 and 2006 wherein the purchasers have constructed the houses with the permission of Gram Panchayat and living therein. During the year 2000 the said layout was incorporated in the Municipal limits of Adilabad town and some purchasers have constructed houses after obtaining permission from the concerned municipal authorities.

3. While the things stood thus, when the petitioner sought to sell the remaining part of subject land, the Sub-Registrar insisted for No Objection Certificate from the respondents and when the respondents were not granting the same, hence the petitioner filed W.P. No.22746 of 2012 that was disposed of by this Court on 25.07.2012 with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation to be made by the petitioner with respect to the character of the land and alienability of the land. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner made a representation dated 22.08.2012 with a request to issue NOC for the land in Sy.No.49 to an extent of Acs.11.09 guntas situated at Battisawargaon village, Adilabad district. The 1st respondent, after obtaining the reports from the 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, passed the impugned Memo dated 01.04.2013 holding that the subject land is Government Land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. On behalf of the respondents, the 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, while denying the averments of the petitioner filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the land in Sy.No.49 to an extent of Acs.13.09 guntas was sanctioned Sumul Izafa in the year 1953 in the name of Sri Neertati Chinna Ganga and effected the pahani for the year 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 and it is under cultivation of Sri Neerati Chinna Ganga. Subsequently, the ownership was changed while granting Kammi and Izafa to an extent of 11.09 guntas in the name of the petitioner due to purchase of the land from the pattedar vide registered document No.94/1971 and the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records in the year 1971-72 and continued up to 2008-09. It is submitted that as per the revenue records the land in Sy.No.49 is Government land and the said land was assigned to Sri Neerati Chinna Ganga prior to enforcement of G.O. Ms. No.1406, dated 25.07.1958 under Special Laoni Rules. Hence, the application made by the petitioner for issuance NOC for the subject land is rejected as it is a Government land.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed written submissions.

6. The learned Senior Counsel Sri D. Prakash Reddy, representing the learned counsel Sri Avinash Desai appearing for the petitioner, while narrating the factual background of the case submitted that the impugned Memo is contrary to all the records. He submitted that no-where, ever in any document or factual report, the subject land was mention