Allowed

Sunkara Nageswara v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Feb 2020WP/2887/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the 2nd Respondent illegally retained assigned land in the prohibited property list contrary to G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018. It directed deletion of the land and subsequent entry in the 3rd Respondent's books.

What did the court decide?

Directing 2nd Respondent to implement G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018 by deleting the property from prohibited list and instructing 3rd Respondent to make entries in books upon communication.

Sunkara Nageswara Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.2887 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in including the land covered by S.Nos.290-A and 290-B an extent of Ac.0-73 cents and Ac.8-99 cents respectively of Kommalapudi village in prohibited property list prepared Under Section 22-A (1) (e) of Registration Act and the letter No.GDR/22/2019 dated 9.9.2019 issued by the 3^rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and without any authority and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to delete the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.73 cents in S.No.290-A and Ac.8-99 cents in S.No.290-B of Kommalapudi village from the prohibited property list prepared under Section 22-A(1) (e) of Registration Act, 1908 and further direct the 3^rd respondent to make necessary entries in books as per the final decree in I.A.No.1069 of 2016 in O.S.No.63 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge court, Gudur SPSR Nellore District.”

¶6

The petitioner, his brothers and sister have filed suit O.S.No.63 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gudur against S.V.Ramanaiah and others for partition and separate possession of the 1/6^th share each in the plaint schedule property. The trial Court decreed the suit O.S.No.63 of 2008 and passed preliminary decree on 30.09.2016. No appeal is preferred against the said preliminary decree. Therefore, it became final. Later, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1069 of 2016 in O.S.No.63 of 2008 to pass final decree, and the Court passed final decree on 28.08.2019 in terms of preliminary decree.

¶7

After passing final decree, respondent No.3 vide letter No.GDR/22/2009 dated 09.09.2019 has informed the Senior Civil Judge that the land in S.No.290-B of Kommalapudi Village is

¶8

¶9

MSM,J Wp_2887_2020

¶10

included in the list of prohibited properties as per the proceedings of the District Collector in Rc.E11/786/2019 dated 06.02.2019 under Section 22-A (1) (e) of Registration Act and returned the final decree without making entries in their books.

¶11

It is specifically contended that the land in S.No.290-A and 290-B was assigned to the father of the petitioner vide proceedings D.Dis.No.15387/52 dated 22.07.1952 by incorporating conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.1523 Revenue dated 11.06.1949. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.575 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 16.11.2018 was issued. The Government in the said G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018 ordered for deletion of lands assigned prior to 18.06.1954 from the purview of Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, respondent No.3 cannot refuse to make entries in the books basing on the final decree, and that the partition among the members of the family after the death of their father does not amount to transfer of property and requested to set aside the impugned proceedings.

¶12

During hearing, Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the contentions urged in the petition.

¶13

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignments, Stamps and Registration fairly brought to the notice of this Court about G.O.Ms.No.575 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 16.11.2018 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶14

Undisputedly, the land in S.No.290-A and 290-B was assigned to the father of the petitioner vide proceedings D.Dis.No.15387/52 dated 22.07.1952 incorporating certain conditions stipulated in Para No.9 of G.O.Ms.No.1523 Revenue dated 11.06.1949. Since the said land is assigned land, respondent No.2 included the property in the

¶15

MSM,J Wp_2887_2020

¶16

3 prohibitory list under Section 22-A (1) (e) of the Registration Act. As per G.O.Ms.No.575 Revenue (Assigned-I) Department dated 16.11.2018, the District Collectors are directed to delete the lands assigned prior to 18.06.1954 from the purview of Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, respondent No.2 is bound to implement the directions issued in G.O.Ms.No.575 Revenue (Assigned-I) Department dated 16.11.2018, but no action was taken by respondent No.2 based on the said G.O. Therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in not deleting the property of the petitioner from the prohibited property list under Section 22-A (1) (e) of Registration Act, 1908 is illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, respondent No.2 is directed to implement G.O.Ms.No.575 Revenue (Assigned-I) Department dated 16.11.2018, pass appropriate orders, and communicate the same to respondent No.3 within one (1) month, on communication, respondent No.3 is directed to make entries in the books.

¶17

With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶18

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶20

17.02.2020 Ksp

Sunkara Nageswara v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunkara Nageswara v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boddepalli Damodar Vs the State of Ap

C. Narsimha Sarma at Narsimhaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sagiraju Viswanadha Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Govada Nireekshana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jammalla Sudhakar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Devarapalli Jaya Sree, Vs the Styate of Ap