Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Sri Dayara Susheela and others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Telangana and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.14487 of 2021
Decided on : 18-07-2023
Registration Act - Prohibitory List - Section 22(A)(1)(b) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, and its misapplication by the respondents in including the property in the prohibitory list. The court also referred to G.O.Ms.No.1406 and G.O.Ms.No.1724, Revenue Department, and their implications on the assignment of lands. The judgment also highlighted the legal principles established in previous cases, such as the importance of possession in determining title and the conditions of assignment patta.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the denotification of their land from the prohibitory list under Section 22(A)(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, claiming ownership and possession of the land prior to 1945. The respondents included the land in the prohibitory list, citing government ownership and non-alienation conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents' refusal to denotify the land lacked reasoning and ignored evidence of long-term possession by the assignees. The court also noted the misapplication of Section 22-A(1)(b) and directed the reconsideration of the petitioners' representation for denotification.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership and possession of the land, the application of Section 22-A(1)(b), and the refusal to denotify the land without proper reasoning.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of possession in determining title, the implications of G.O.Ms.No.1406 and G.O.Ms.No.1724 on assignment of lands, and the misapplication of Section 22-A(1)(b) by the respondents.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the 2nd respondent was directed to reconsider the petitioners' representation for denotification, taking into account the evidence of possession and the legal principles established in previous cases.
ORDER :
Heard the Learned Senior Designate Counsel Mr. D.V. Sitharama Murthy appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in including property of an extent of Ac. 13.26 gts of land forming part of the total extent of Ac 56.16 guntas of land situated in Sy No 201/2 to 201/26 at Yadgarpalli East Village Keesara Mandal Medchal Malkajgiri District Telangana belonging to the Petitioners in prohibitory list under Section 22 (A)(1)(b) of the Registration Act 1908 as being government land without any gazette notification and rejecting the plea of the Petitioners to delete the lands from prohibitory list vide proceedings No E1/248/2017 dated 12.02.2021 which were communicated vide Endorsement No E2/1351/2019 dated 20.02.2021 as being illegal and the action of the Respondent No.7 in refusing to entertain any deeds of conveyance for registrations pertaining to the said extent of lands as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional in violation of provisions of the Registration Act and consequently direct the Respondents to delete the subject property of an extent of Ac 13.26 guntas of land forming part of the total extent of Ac 56.16 guntas of land situated in Sy No 201/2 to 201/26 at Yadgarpalli East Village Keesara Mandal Medchal Malkajgiri District Telangana from the prohibitory list under Section 22(A)(1).
3. The case of the petitioners, as per the Writ Affidavit is as follows:
a) Petitioners’ are the absolute owners and title holders of the land to an extent of Ac. 13.26 guntas, forming part of the total extent of Ac.56.16 guntas of land situated in Sy. No. 201/2 to 201/26 at Yadgarpalli, Keesara Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri, Telangana.
b) Petitioners are the legal heirs and descendants of the original assignees and have been in possession and enjoyment of subject land prior to 1945 and the names of the forefathers of the petitioners have been recorded in the revenue records as early as 1954-1955.
c) The Land in Sy.No. 201 was originally assigned to one Mr. Dappu Maisaiah and 34 others in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 1724 dated 26.08.1959.
d) The said survey no. 201 of Yadgarpalli has a total extent of Ac.136.20 guntas, out of which, 83.00 guntas were cleared and are being cultivated by harijans and backward classes of Yadgarpalli Village.
e) Further, the lands in Sy.No 201 were sub-divided into Sy.No’s 201/2 to Sy.No’s 201/26 and the extent of land held by One Mr. Dappu Miasaiah and 34 others were demarcated in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor columns. Even in the Khasara Pahani for the year 1954-1955, the subject land in Sy.No.201 of Yedgarpalli Village was shown as “Poramboku-Sarkari’ and the names of One Mr. Dappu Miasaiah and 34 others were demarcated to the extent of land in their possession and the same had been recorded in the Sesala Pahani records for the years 1955-1958.
f) Prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 1406 dated 25.07.1958, (which had prohibited the alienation of government land to landless poor or other persons) assignments were made in the subject land in Sy.No. 201 at Yedgarpalli Village, in accordance to Circular No.14 dated 08.11.1954, which did not contain any prohibition whatsoever, against which the petitioners do not have pattedar passbooks, as the same had been lost. Petitioners had requested respondent no. 6 and 7 to furnish the passbook copies but were informed that, pattas were not traceable and are unavailable.
g) The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1724 dated 26.08.1959, relaxing and clarifying rules for assignment of government lands notified vide G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958. It had been clarified that, land which were assigned under Circular no.14 were to be dealt/apply the rules of those circulars only and not as per the new rules of assignment under G.O.Ms.No. 1406, dated 25.07.1958.
h) It was later learnt that the s
Assigned land sold in auction by Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society is ceased to be assigned land on its sale.
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....
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 inten....
Point of Law- Several illegal transactions were taken place in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 as amended in Act 8 of 2007. Hence....
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....
Point of Law : If land assigned to landless poor persons under Laoni Rules, there must be condition of non-alienation as per settled law, otherwise it cannot be declared as void transaction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
