SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.17678 of 2021

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

=

The case of the petitioner is that the land in Sy.No.233 an extent of Ac.15.17 cents was classified as Government doted land subsequently sub division was effected vide Sy.No.233-1 to an extent of Ac.4.87 cents, Sy.No.233-2 to an extent of Ac.4.18 cents and Sy.No.233-3 to an extent of Ac.6.12 cents, conditionally assigned vide D.A.Dis.No.1437/38 as per RSR of Palasamudram Village, in Sy.No.233-2 to an extent of Ac.4.18 cents was assigned to one Illuru Gangadu and in Sy.No.233-3 to an extent of Ac.6.12 cents was assigned to one Illuru Bapigadu dated 30.06.1929. The said land was sold by the original assigned and several transactions have taken place. The petitioner has purchased the land to an extent of Ac.9.59 cents in Sy.No.233-2, and an extent Ac.10.30 cents in Sy.No.233-3 on 15.07.2007 and 17.10.2007 and out of Ac.9.59 cents Ac.1.45 cents were acquired by the APIIC. In respect of Sy.No.238 Ac.11.65 cents was assigned to Boyapullappa gari Gangappa on

18.12.1929.

It is further contended that the Government also withdrawn the Notification for acquisition of the land vide District Gazette ATR No.102/2015, dated 09.11.2015 in respect of the Sy.No.233-2C an extent of Ac.0.40 cents, Sy.No.233-2D an extent of Ac.1.59 cents, Sy.233-2E an extent of Ac. 0.99 cents Sy.No.233-3C an extent of Ac.0.98 cents, Sy No.233-3D to an extent of Ac. 0.64 cents, Sy.No.233-2E an extent of Ac. 2.11 cents, 233-3F to an extent of Ac.1.22 cents Sy.No.238 an extent of Ac. 11.65 cents total an extent of Ac. 19. 58 cents situated at Palasamudram Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

It is further contended that in respect of Sy.No.77/1 an extent of Ac. 12.45 cents was originally assigned to Boya Vemanna vide proceedings D.A. Dis.No. 1422/38 dated 13.03.1929 and also in respect of Sy.No.80 to an extent of Ac. 9.98 cents was assigned to Y.Boya Anjigadu vide proceedings D.A. Dis No.1424/38, dated 30.03.1929 situated in at Palasamudram Village, Gorantla Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, same was purchased by the petitioner. Permission was granted to the petitioner for lay out and he sold the above said land, but the Sub Registrar, Chilamattur refused to register the document on the ground that the above said land is classified as assigned land as per the list communicated. Government issued G.O.Ms.No.575 Revenue (Assignemnt-I) Department dated 16.11.2018 classified all the assignment made prior to 18.06.1954 may be consider for deletion from the purview of 22-A of Registration Act, 1908 as there was no condition of non alienation.

The petitioner made application through mee-seva vide application Nos. TTA012000049064, TTA012000049060, TTA012000049065, TTA012000049067 and TTA012000049069 to respondent No.2. Thereupon, respondent No.2 directed Mandal Revenue Inspector, Gorantla in the month of March, 2020 to furnish a report. The Mandal Revenue Inspector sent report to respondent No.2 through respondent No.3. Respondent No.4 send a letter to the respondent No.2 dated 20.03.2020 through respondent No.3 in Rc.No.54/2020/(A). In the said letter it is stated that respondent No.2 directed respondent No.4 to re-verify the prohibition list notified Under-22(A) (i)(a) to (e) as per G.O.Ms.No.575, dated 16.11.2018 and furnish revised list to Registration department under Section 22-A (1) (a) to (e) of the Registration Act. As per the direction of the Collector, Ananthapuramu, the revised prohibitory properties list was prepared in terms of G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018 duly removing the said land which was assigned prior to 18.06.1954 and submitted the same to the District Collector, Anantapuramu. But, respondent No.2 is not taking steps to delete the subject land from the prohibited property list notified under Section 22 A (i) (c) of the Registration Act.

Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions urged in the petition requested

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top