S. Idris, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the orders vide Rc.No.E4/2191/2022, Dt.26.06.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent in rejecting deletion of the petitioner's land in Sy.No.211-1B to an extent of Ac.3-74 cents situated at Kakkalapalle Village, Ananthapuramu Mandal, Ananthapur District from the prohibited list under section 22A-

¶19

2

¶20

(1)(A) of Indian Registration Act 1908 is illegal and arbitrary ignoring the earlier proceedings vide Rc.B/856/07 Dt.26.07.2007 issued by the 4th respondent and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to issue necessary orders for deletion of above subject land from prohibited list under section 22A-(1)(A) of Indian Registration Act, 1908 forthwith and to pass such other order or orders.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.KATA SAMBASIVA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:

¶29

……to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the orders vide Rc.No.E4/2191/2022, Dt.26.06.2022 passed by the 2^nd respondent in rejecting deletion of the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.211-1B to an extent of Ac.3-74 cents situated at Kakkalapalle Village, Ananthapuramu Mandal, Ananthapur District from the prohibited list under section 22A(1)(A) of Indian Registration Act, 1908 is illegal and arbitrary ignoring the earlier proceedings vide Rc.B/856/07 Dt.26.07.2007 issued by the 4^th respondent and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to issue necessary orders for deletion of above subject land from prohibited list under section 22A-(1)(A) of Indian Registration Act, 1908 forthwith and to pass such other order or orders…

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶31

herein filed an application dated 17.09.2021 through MeeSeva for deletion of the land in Sy.No.211-1B to an extent of Ac.3.74 cents situated at Kakkalapalle village, Anantapuramu Mandal, from the prohibited property list under Section 22A(1)(A) of Indian Registration Act, 1908. As there is no action on the said application, the petitioner

¶32

4

¶33

herein was compelled to file Writ Petition bearing No.28966 of 2021 questioning the inaction of the revenue authorities in deletion of the subject land from the prohibited properties list. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide order 08.12.2021, directing the District Collector to dispose of the application dated 17.09.2021 submitted by the petitioner on its own merits in accordance with law.

¶34

As the 2^nd respondent is not disposed of the said application, the petitioner herein constrained to file contempt case. Thereafter, the District Collector rejected the request of the petitioner for deletion of the subject land from the prohibited property list under Section 22A(1)(A) of Indian Registration Act, 1908, on the ground that there is no proof of documentary evidence filed by the petitioner that the said land was assigned prior to 18.06.1954 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.575 Rev. (Assign.I) Department, dated 16.11.2018, vide proceedings dated 26.06.2022 in Rc.No.E4/2191/2022. The said order of the District Collector was assailed in the present Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner herein filed W.P. No.15756 of 2013 before the erstwhile common High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court vide its order dated 05.07.2013, disposed of the Writ Petition on the basis of the written instruction furnished by learned Government Pleader for Revenue, addressed by the Tahsildar, Anantapur Mandal, which

¶35

5

¶36

reflects that the subject lands were assigned under proceedings dated 03.08.1951.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the proceedings of Tahsildar, dated 26.07.2007 explicitly indicates that the assignments were made prior to G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954 and therefore, there is no such non-alienation condition attached to the patta prior to 1954 and also further contended that the burden of proof lies on the respondents to demonstrate that the assignment contained condition of non-alienation. Hence, prayed this Court to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 26.06.2022, issued by the District Collector.

¶38

Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that as per the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent-District Collector, the petitioner has not produced any valid documentary evidence to prove that the land in Sy.No.211-1B to an extent of Ac.3.74 cents situated at Kakkalapalle village, Anantapuramu Mandal, was assigned prior to 18.06.1954, but as per the RSR of Kakkalapalli village of Ananthapuramu Mandal, the land in Sy.No.211-1 was sub-divided on 03.12.1953 that it indicates that the assignment process started subsequent to 1954 and the order of the 2^nd respondent-District Collector is sustainable under law and no flaw in the impugned order and requested this Court to dismiss the Writ petition.

¶39

6

¶40

Heard Sri N. Ashwathnarayana, learned counsel on behalf of learned counsel on record for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government for the State.

¶41

The District Collector-2^nd respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner is unable to submit any valid documentary evidence to establish that the land in Sy.No.211-1B to an extent of Ac.3.74 cents situated at Kakkalapalle village, Anantapuramu Mandal, was assigned prior to 18.06.1954.

¶42

8. In the judgment passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in G. Satyanarayana v. Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by it s Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others¹ and in the judgment of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board Employees Union Chittoor District v. Joint Collector, Chittoor and others² it is held that the burden of proof lies on the State to demonstrate that the assignments contained a condition of non-alienation.

¶43

9. As per the judgments referred supra, the burden is upon the State to demonstrate the assignments contained a condition of nonalienation and it was assigned subsequent to 1954 i.e. 18.06.1954 and in the present case the burden is fixed on the petitioner herein, is

¶44

1 2014 SCC OnLine AP 334

¶45

2 2008 (1) ALD 29

¶46

7

¶47

unsustainable under law. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 05.07.2013 in W.P. No.15756 of 2013 directed the Sub-Registrar to receive and process the documents presented by the same petitioner for the very subject land in the same Sy.Nos.211-1B and 211-1C which is form part of the present survey numbers.

¶48

10. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed and the 2^nd respondent-District Collector is hereby directed to delete the subject land of the Writ Petition from the prohibited property list under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 03.11.2025

Harin

8

69