Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Konala Ammi Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Jan 2024WA/642/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal by the State challenging an order directing issuance of NOC for sale of ex-servicemen-assigned land. The Division Bench held that G.O.Ms.No.279 dated 04.07.2016 dispensed with the NOC requirement for ex-servicemen and freedom fighters, and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Konala Ammi Reddy — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶5

WRIT APPEAL No.642 of 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (ASSn.I) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Vaelagapudi, Guntur District and 4 others

¶8

…Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Konala Ammi Reddy R/o. G. Mamidda, Pedapudi Mandal, Kakinada District and another.

¶11

…Respondents

¶12

Counsel for Appellants : Additional Advocate General Counsel for respondents : Sri N. Siva Reddy Dt.: 09.01.2024

¶13

JUDGMENT:

¶14

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶15

Heard Sri B. Sasibhushan Rao, for the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants and Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶16

HCJ & RRR, J W.A.No.642 of 2022 2

¶17

An extent of Ac.4.50 cents of land in Sy.No.483/9A of Venkannapalem village, Chodavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, was assigned to one B. Simhachalam in the year 1961. After his demise in 1962, the land devolved on his two daughters, who had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The daughters of late Sri B. Simhachalam had subsequently made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking permission for sale of the said land on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993.

¶18

As the No Objection Certificate, for selling the land, was not being given by the revenue authorities, the daughters of late Sri B. Simhachalam filed W.P.No.25984 of 2012 seeking a direction to the officials to grant NOC for alienation of the said land. This writ petition was disposed of on 22.08.2012 leaving it open to the petitioners to exercise their rights over the land. Thereafter, there were certain communications between the revenue authorities regarding this matter during which the daughters of late Sri B. Simhachalam sold the land to the petitioners through a registered deed of sale dated 17.09.2012. The petitioners, who were put in possession of the land under the said deed of sale, also obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds

¶19

HCJ & RRR, J 3

¶20

W.A.No.642 of 2022

¶21

in respect of the said land and their names were mutated in the revenue records.

¶22

After some time, the petitioners decided to sell away this land and approached the 5^th respondent-Sub-Registrar to ascertain the market value of the land. However, the petitioners were informed that the said land was included in the prohibited properties list, under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and as such no transactions would be permissible in respect of the subject land. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in including the subject land in the prohibited list, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of W.P.No.12158 of 2016.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioners that the afore said land was assigned to late Sri B. Simhachalam under the ex-serviceman category and the said land is alienable after a period of 10 years, as provided in G.O.Ms.No.1117, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 11.11.1993, as also the orders of the learned Single Judge, dated 05.02.2020, in W.P.No.2089 of 2020. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions made on either side, disposed of the writ petition by order dated 16.03.2021 holding that no NOC is required for sale of land of ex-servicemen. However, since the petitioners had already made a representation dated 03.07.2020 a direction was issued to the District Collector to take

¶24

HCJ & RRR, J 4

¶25

W.A.No.642 of 2022

¶26

steps forthwith to complete the process for issuing NOC to enable the petitioners to execute necessary registered deeds of sale.

¶27

Aggrieved by the said order, the State of A.P. and the

¶28

Revenue Authorities, arrayed as respondents in the writ petition, have preferred the present writ appeal.

¶29

Sri B. Sesibhushan Rao, learned Special Government Pleader in the office of the Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants/respondents in the writ petition, would submit that the assignment of the land in favour of late Sri B. Simhachalam cannot be treated as an assignment under exserviceman category and would have to be treated as an allotment under the landless poor category. He would submit that G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.1.1993, relied upon by the appellants/respondents in the writ petition, is not applicable to the present case as the said Government Order had been issued in favour of the ex-servicemen, who had participated in the defence of the country, during the Chinese aggression, in the year 1963. He would also submit that the land in question would have to be treated as an assigned land under the provisions of the Board Standing Order 15 and as such would have to be included in the list of prohibited properties as there can be no alienation of the land by the assignees.

¶30

HCJ & RRR, J W.A.No.642 of 2022 5

¶31

Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners would point out to the amendment to the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 wherein Section 2(1) of the said Act had been amended by Act, 35/2023 to permit alienation of house sites in a period of 10 years from the date of assignment and alienation of agricultural lands within a period of 20 years from the date of assignment. In the present case, the assignment is said to have been done in the year 1962, and as such, alienation of the property at this stage is permissible, and accordingly, the land cannot be kept in the prohibited register.

¶32

It may be pointed out that while G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.21993 read with G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963 are applicable to Jawans, who served from the date of declaration of emergency due to Chinese aggression, the relaxation granted under G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016, cited before the learned Single Judge, clearly states that the Government had directed that the procedure of issuing NOC will be dispensed with and there would have no need to obtain NOC in all cases of ex-servicemen and freedom fighters. In such circumstances, the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.279 dated 04.07.2016 would also be applicable and

¶33

HCJ & RRR, J 6

¶34

W.A.No.642 of 2022

¶35

would relieve the respondents/writ petitioners from the burden of obtaining NOC from the revenue authorities.

¶36

For the aforesaid reasons, this writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶38

¶39

¶40

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶41

WRIT APPEAL No.642 of 2022

¶42

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

¶43

9^th January 2024

¶44

The State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Konala Ammi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Konala Ammi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Prajwal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs D Rajeswari

Girijala Simhachalam Vs the State of Ap

Jasti Rama Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Union of India Vs Dr. Koneru Sreedhar

Hanuma Ayyappa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh