The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Devarapu Pullaiah

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the learned single judge Dt.31.12.2018 in W.P.No.47479 of 2018, pending disposal of the writ appeal.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (APf

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI P ROY REDDY

¶28

The Court made the following order:

¶29

1

¶30

RRR,J & JS,J W.A.No.lSlof 2021

¶31

' r

¶32

APHC010102192021

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶34

[3541]

¶35

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶36

WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶37

PRESENT

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶40

WRIT APPEAL NO: 151/2021

¶41

Between:

¶42

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

DevarapuPullaiah

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶48

ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶50

1.P ROY REDDY

¶51

The Court made the following order: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶52

An extent of Ac.0.81 cents of land in Sy.No.274/B6 was assigned to one Smt. K. Rattamma, by way of DKT patta No.2/1402, dated 24.07.1992. An extent of Ac.0.96 cents in Sy.No.274/B7 was assigned^{toSriL.Bhikshaluvide} DKT patta No.6/1402, dated 24.07.1970. An extent of Ac.2.12 cents was assigned to Sri Atchi Reddy in Sy.No.274/B8, in DKT patta No.1/1402, dated

¶53

'I

¶54

2

¶55

RRR,J & JS,J W.A.No.lSlof 2021

¶56

24.07.1992. These lands were subsequently purchased by the vendor of the respondent herein by way of three registered deeds of sale, dated 21.12.2009. Thereafter, the respondent had purchased these lands on 04.06.2015. After the said purchase, the name of the respondent was entered in the record of rights and a passbook was also issued to the respondent^{foranextentof} Ac.3.89 cents of lands under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). The Tahsildar, PedaKakani Mandal, who was arrayed as respondent No.4^{intheWritPetition} had also issued a certificate, dated 15.05.2012, certifying^{thattheabovelands} had been allotted on payment of market value.

¶57

The respondent had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.47479 of 2018 when a notification was published^{underSection22-} A(1)(e) of the Registration Act vide G.O.Ms.No.197, dated 05.05.2016 including the aforesaid land of the petitioner in the register that is to be maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The respondent contended that the authorities had simply treated the lands in question as lands assigned withoutpayment of market value and had^{includedthelandin} the 22-A list on the ground that the said land is assigned^land.

¶58

The respondent contended that the land in question is not assigned land and would not fall within the ambit of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 inasmuch as the land in question does not meet the parameters of the definition of assigned land^{underSection2ofthe}

¶59

3

¶60

RRR,J &JS,J W.A.No.lSlof 2021

¶61

r

¶62

said Act. The respondent contends that the land in question is not an assigned land as it is only land which is assigned free of cost and to landless poor persons that would attract the definition of assigned land. The respondent relied upon the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Nimmagadda Ramadevi vs. District Collector, GunturV, and Telangana Area in letter sent from Plot No.338, Parvant Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy.^

¶63

The respondent, being aggrieved by such entries, had approached this Court contending that the subject land^{couldnothavebeen} included in the prohibitory list vide G.O.Ms.No.197, dated 05.05.2016, and for setting aside the same to the extent of the land of the respondent. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh allowed this Writ Petition holding that the issues raised in the present Writ petition are similar to W.P.No.46074 of 2018 which had already been allowed^{on21.12.2018.The} learned Single Judge, while allowing the Writ Petition,^{setasidetheinclusion} of the land of the respondent aggregating to Ac.3.38 cents from the prohibitory list of properties. The learned Single Judge passed^{thatorderonthebasisof} an earlier order, dated 21.12.2018, in W.P.No.46074 of 2018.

¶64

^Q08 (5) ALT 313 (DB)

¶65

‘ 1996(4) ALT 325 (DB)

¶66

4 RRR,J & JS,J W.A.No.lSlof 2021

¶67

Aggrieved by this order, W.A.No.132 of 2019 had been filed. However, this Writ Appeal was dismissed on the ground^that it had been filed by the Tahsildar who is not authorized to do so on behalf of the State Government. Subsequently, the present Writ Appeal came to be filed against the very same order as it was left open to the State^{Governmenttotakethe} course, permissible under law.

¶68

The contention of the appellants is that the Writ Petition could not have been allowed inasmuch as the land remains assigned^{landandcouldnot} have been treated as regular patta land. The respondent^{alsocontendsthat} there is no provision in the Board Standing Orders for assigned land on payment of market value and as such the assignment^patta should be^treated as a patta given to landless poor persons, free of cost by the Tahsildar and consequently the land would remain assigned land as^{theconditionofnon} alienation would remain.

¶69

Sri P. Roy Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent^would submit that the land in question cannot be treated as assigned land falling within the purview of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, as the land in question is assigned land.

¶70

Section 2(1) of the Act stipulates that the land which^hasbeen given to landless poor persons with a condition of^{absolutenon-alienation} would be defined as ‘assigned land’. The A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of

¶71

5 RRR,J & JS,J W.A.No.lSlof 2021

¶72

\

¶73

Transfers) Act, 1977 also stipulated that any sale^{ofsuchlandwouldbevoid} and such a sale which would not give any rights to the purchaser.

¶74

The assignment of land is not dealt with under a separate enactment or Act. However, the provision relating to assignment of land to landless poor persons is contained in Board Standing Order No. 15. Initially this Board Standing Order did not stipulate any condition^{ofnonalienationfor} any land which is assigned free of cost to land less poor persons. However, by G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954, the condition of non alienation was introduced in the DKT pattas. In the present case, the appellants contend that the land was assigned free of cost while the respondent^{contendsthatthe} land was transferred or assigned on payment of market^value.

¶75

A perusal of the pattas issued to the original pattadars^showsthat market value had been fixed in all these patta and^there is an endorsement that the market value fixed in the pattas had been totally paid by the individual with details of receipt number on all the DKT patta^forms.

¶76

The learned Government Pleader took the stand that while the pattas are genuine, the endorsements on the pattas were made subsequently and these endorsements were actually inserted at a later point of time and they do not reflect any actual payment of the said^marketvalue.

¶77

It is difficult for this Court to accept such a contention^inasmuch as the Mandal Revenue Officer, who had signed the DKT patta forms had also

¶78

RRR,J & JSJ W.A.No.lSlof 2021

¶79

6

¶80

signed below the endorsement evidencing receipt of payment of market value. In such a circumstance, this Court cannot accept the^{contentionoftheState} that the land in question is assigned land which falls within the purview of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,^1977.

¶81