A sale certificate issued to the petitioner clearly established that the land was purchased in a public auction and the market value was paid, making it a private patta land.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“...to issue an Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in not furnishing the valuation particulars and expressing refusal to register of documents that may be presented by the petitioner on the ground that Sy.No.58/2 (Acs.3.67 cents) in Utukuru village, CK Dinne Mandal, YSR Kadapa District is Government Land as illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Arts. 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 3rd Respondent Sub-Registrar, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District to furnish valuation particulars and effect registration of the documents that may be presented by the petitioner as per Law...”.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the land in Sy.No.58/2, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.67 cents situated at Utukuru Village, CK Dinne Mandal, YSR Kadapa District in E.P.No.46/79-80, dated 09.03.1985 in an open auction conducted by Senior Inspector/Sale Officer, Syndicate Bank, Kadapa, and thereafter, the petitioner was also issued a sale certificate on 11.07.1985; the Revenue Authorities have also issued Pattadar Passbook and titile deed in favour of the petitioner. While the things stood thus, when the petitioner intended to sell the property in favour of the third parties and approached the 3rd respondent herein with a request to furnish the market value certificate, the 3rd respondent have informed that the land claimed by the petitioner is DKT and it is prohibited for registration, challenging which, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. At the outset, the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue took an objection that the petitioner has not presented any document so far.

4. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record.

5. On a perusal of the sale certificate, it is very clear that the sale certificate issued under Sub-Section 14 (V) of Rule 52 of the Rules framed in the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1987 by which, the petitioner has purchased the said property at a public auction held by the Senior Inspector/Sale Officer, Syndicate Bank, Kadapa on payment of sale consideration of Rs.5,500/- in Execution of Award No.8/78-79, dated 10.11.2018 on the file of the Taluk Co-operative Sub-Registrar, Cuddapah clearly establishes the fact that on having purchased the property in public auction and having paid the market value, the said land becomes a private patta land, and thereafter, the Government does not have any right over the said property to declare it as a prohibited property or DKT land.

6. It would be appropriate to refer Para-19 of Judgment in the case of Sub-Registrar Vs K. Guravaiah and another1 of Hon’ble High Court, wherein it is held as follows:-

“Let us consider the provisions of Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act in the light of the facts of the present case. In the present case, as stated herein above, it was open to the original assignees of the land to mortgage the land to the bank by virtue of the definition of Section 2(1). If the mortgage in favour of the bank was not alienation, there was no restriction with regard to the mortgaging the assigned land in favour of the bank. Thus, the mortgage was valid. As the mortgage money was not repaid to the bank, the bank sold the land after following due process of law and thereby the petitioner became a lawful owner of the land in question. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, provisions of Section -5 would not operate because the prohibition is on registration of any document relating to transfer or creation of any interest in assigned land. In the instant case, the transaction in pursuance of which the land had been purchased by the petitioner was valid and not contrary to the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act. In such a case, in our opinion,