Allowed

Tavva Nagamani v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Nov 2023WP/38293/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court allowed the petitioner's appeal regarding the registration of a sale deed for land assigned to her husband, a freedom fighter. The Court directed the authorities to remove the land from the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was allowed to alienate the property. The 5th respondent was directed to delete the property from the prohibited list within four weeks, and the 8th respondent was directed to register

Tavva Nagamani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.38293 of 2022

Between:-

Tavva Nagamani

…. Petitioner And

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Registration and Stamps Department & 7 others.

¶7

…. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.N. Bharath Simha Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Government Pleader for Nos.1,4 & 8 Stamps & Registration Counsel for the Respondents : Government Pleader for Revenue Nos.2, 3, 5 to 7

¶8

ORDER :

¶9

The petitioner, an octogenarian and wife of a freedom fighter, filed the present writ petition inter alia aggrieved by the action of the respondents in refusing to entertain the sale deed dated 26.09.2022, for registration of land of an extent of Ac.1.03 cents situated in Sy.No.876/4A and 4B of Vodarevu, Epurupalem Revenue village, Chirala Mandal and not removing the said land from the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short

¶10

¶11

“the Act”) as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016 etc., and for consequential directions. 2) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits

¶13

that the petitioner’s husband one Sri Tavva Sreeramulu participated in the freedom movement in the year 1942 and recognizing the same, the Government of India granted benefits vide Freedom Fighters Pension Proceedings No.112/179/88-FF.S2, dated 21.04.1989. He submits that the petitioner’s husband was assigned land of an extent of Ac.1-03 cents vide D-Form Patta (EX.P1), dated 27.10.1989, and his name was mutated in the revenue records. He further submits that the petitioner’s husband died on 22.12.2001. Since then, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land and when she sought to register the sale deed, the 8^th respondent refused to entertain the same stating that the subject matter land has been placed in the prohibited properties list. Drawing the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.1045, dated 15.12.2004 (Ex.P8), wherein the

¶14

¶15

Government issued orders permitting the assignees, in whose favour the land is assigned under Freedom Fighters quota, to sell the assigned land after expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment; as also orders in G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016 (Ex.P9), directing the District Collectors to delete the land, which is assigned in favour of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen from the prohibited lands list, he submits that in the light of these Government Orders, the action on the part of the respondent authorities in not registering the subject matter land and not deleting the same from the prohibited lands category list is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.

¶16

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue made submissions with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the 7^th respondent. Referring to Ex.P.1 i.e., D Form patta, granted in favour of the petitioner’s husband, he submits that said patta was not granted under the category of Freedom Fighters Quota, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to alienate the land. He also submits that as the subject matter properties are placed in the prohibited category list, the 8^th respondent is

¶17

¶18

justified in not entertaining the document seeking the registration in respect of the subject matter land. Contending that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶19

In a short reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of the land, which was separately assigned to the petitioner’s husband, the 5^th respondent vide proceedings dated 11.06.2008, recommended NOC and in such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to sell the subject matter property and the respondents are not justified in raising the objections. He also submits that the stand taken by the respondent authorities to the effect that the assignment in favour of the petitioner’s husband was in general category, but not under the Freedom Fighter’s Quota merits no acceptance. Learned counsel while placing reliance on the decision of learned Judge dated 07.04.2021 in W.P.No.26737 of 2018 seeks appropriate reliefs in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶20

1. On examination of the rival contentions and on perusal of the material on record with reference thereof, the point that falls for adjudication by this Court is as to

¶21

¶22

whether the petitioner is entitled to sell the subject matter land and a direction to delete the subject matter land from the prohibited category list, can be granted?

¶23

At the outset, it is pertinent to state that there is no dispute with regard to the status of the petitioner’s husband as freedom fighter. The material on record would go to show that the petitioner’s husband has also drawn the pension granted by the Central Government recognizing him as a freedom fighter. It is also not in dispute that a patta was granted vide Ex.P1 to the petitioner’s husband in respect of subject matter land of an extent of Ac.1-03 cents. The only objection as contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appears to be that the subject matter land was not assigned to the petitioner’s husband under the freedom fighters quota, but as a general assignment. In such circumstances, it is the stand of the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.1045 dated 15.12.2004 is not applicable to the petitioner’s case and therefore, she is not entitled to sell the subject matter land. The said objections/contentions raised on behalf of the respondents merit no acceptance,

¶24

¶25

more particularly in the light of the undisputed fact that the petitioner’s husband is a Freedom Fighter. In W.P.No.26737 of 2018, on which strong reliance is placed,

¶26

a learned Judge of this Court was dealing with the case of legal heirs of Ex-Serviceman, who was assigned an extent of Ac.2-96 cents. They sought to alienate the said land to meet their financial requirements, but came to know that the same was entered in the prohibited list of properties under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act. Seeking a direction to delete the property from the prohibited list of properties and for other reliefs they filed the writ petition, wherein a similar stand like in the present case was taken

¶27

to the effect that the land was assigned in the normal course, but not treating the assignee as an Ex-Serviceman that the land is only hereditable, but not alienable. The learned Judge after appreciating the matter, with reference to the material available on record, rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent authorities and allowed

¶28

the Writ Petition. While observing that it cannot be assumed for the moment that the said DKT was issued to him treating as a landless poor as he was a pensioner by

¶29

¶30

then having sufficient means to eakout his livelihood and therefore, the patta must have been issued considering his past history as war veteran / Ex-Serviceman, the learned Judge held as follows:

¶31

“That being the law, it is not just and apt on the part of the respondents to contend that the land was simply assigned to late Hanumantha Rao under DKT patta, but not treating him as Ex-Serviceman and therefore, his progeny is not entitled to alienate the same. Such an argument is farfetched and devoid of the connected associated facts, which are not in dispute. Hence, the Writ Petition merits consideration and allowing.”

¶32

The said reasoning of the learned Judge, in the considered opinion of this Court, applies in all fours to the case on hand. Expect that it is a case of assignment of land to a Freedom Fighter, there is no difference in the facts and circumstances, which compelled the petitioner herein to approach this Court. As noted earlier, there is no dispute about the status of the petitioner’s husband, granting of pension as a Freedom Fighter and assignment of the subject matter land vide DKT patta, dated 27.10.1999. Thus, as observed by the learned Judge in the decision referred to above, the assignment must have

¶33

¶34

been granted taking into consideration the participation of the petitioner’s husband in the Freedom Fight. Merely because it is not specifically mentioned on the patta that it was issued under the Freedom Fighters Quota, it cannot be contended that the assignment of subject matter land is general is nature, not alienable. Therefore, the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents are rejected. This Court, considering the material on record and in the light of the conclusions arrived at supra, is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to alienate the property and the respondents cannot object to the same.

¶35

For the aforesaid going reasons, the Writ Petition is

¶36

allowed. The 5^th respondent is directed to delete the subject matter property from the prohibited properties list within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further the 8^th respondent shall receive, process, register and release the sale deed in respect of the subject matter property, if the same is otherwise in compliance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act-1899 and the Registration Act-1908, without insisting for NOC. No costs.

¶37

¶38

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if

¶39

any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶40

________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶41

Date:23.11.2023 Ssv

Tavva Nagamani v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tavva Nagamani 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manda Suri Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Manda Suri Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M Adilaxmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nallapaneni Kondapas Naidu Vs Sasi.Bhushan Kumar

Tamminaina Manamma Vs the State of Ap

Danda Anil Kumar Vs the Election Commission of India