Smt.Tallam Sridevi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

2^nd respondent in deleting the petitioner’s land from the list of prohibitory properties from registration mentioned under Section 22 A (1) (a) of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶24

It is contended that the petitioner has purchased the subject property vide registered sale deed dated 31.01.2008 from one Neelapu Appa Rao who was an Ex-service man. The said Neelapu Appa Rao was

¶25

2

¶26

assigned land of an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.268/1 of Tadi Village, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District vide proceedings dated 25.01.1993 in terms of the Board Standing Orders (B.S.O.15). It is contended by the petitioner that as per B.S.O. 15, the lands assigned should not be alienated for a period of ten (10) years vide G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993. The Government has clarified that Ex-service men are at liberty to sell the land that was assigned in their favour after 10 years of such assignment. It is stated that the original assignee Sri Neelapu Appa Rao died on 25.01.2003. When an objection was raised by the Registering Authorities to registering the sale document in favour of the petitioner, the vendor of the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.24552 of 2007, before the Court.

¶27

Pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition, the respondents have registered the document in favour of the petitioner. When the petitioner has proposed to sell the said land, she approached the Office of the Sub-Registrar. It has come to her knowledge that the property is kept under the prohibitory list under Section 22 A (1) (a) of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016, there is no requirement to obtain No Objection Certificate, in cases of assignments made in favour of the Ex-service men in which a period of ten (10) years has expired as lapsed. It is further mentioned therein that the said land should be deleted from the prohibitory list under Section 22 A (1) (a) of the Registration Act, 1908. He thus contends that the proceedings of the respondents are unsustainable.

¶29

3

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of this Court reported in (2022) 3 ALT 519 in the case of Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others.

¶31

The 3^rd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that assignee and

¶32

his family members sold away the land in violation of conditions of assignment. It is further contended that the assignment was made under General Category not under Ex-service men quota. Since the assignment was made in favour of the petitioner’s vendor while he was in service, question of ex-service men would not arise. He further contended that since the land was assigned under quota mentioned for land less poor. The application of G.O.Ms.No.279 would not arise.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the instructions of the Central Government dated 15.06.1964, whereunder the requisition was made by the Central Government to all the State Governments to consider the cases of Defence Services personnel for allotment of waste lands in their States. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the distinction sought to be drawn between serving soldiers and Ex-service men, is untenable. The two categories of assignment made in favour of serving personnel and the Ex-service men cannot be treated differently by the Government. It is contended that it is an absurd assumption to propose that the land assigned in favour of the Ex-service men is alienable whereas in the case of serving soldiers, it is not alienable and the same is arbitrary and the same is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he relies on the

¶34

4

¶35

decision of this Court in the case of District Collector, Visakhapatnam Vs. Juvvula Nagulu and two others, wherein it is observed as under:

¶36

“ Once the assignment is admitted, the distinction now sought to be introduced namely, that the assignment made in favour of petitioners 1 and 2 is not under the category of Ex-Servicemen, but DKT assignment, is unacceptable. The reason being, a person either drawing pension or salary does not satisfy the eligibility criteria for assignment of Government land. Therefore, once assignment is made such persons drawing pension means, their cases have been considered under Ex-servicemen quota. The explanation carved out in favour of Ex-Servicemen is that after they retired from service by considering their status of working in the armed forces assignment was made. The respondents ought not to have taken objections against Ex-servicemen having made assignment in their favour about 15 years back. We are in complete agreement with the findings recorded in the order under appeal.”

¶37

8. And the decision of this Court in the case of Ande Narasimha

¶38

Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, wherein it is observed as

¶39

under:

¶40

“ 4. A perusal of the DKT patta granted to the petitioner shows that the land was assigned to him in his capacity as ex-serviceman. However, unfortunately, the assignment patta has not incorporated the condition as envisaged by G.O.Ms.No.743, dated 30.04.1963. Instead, condition No.1 therein has prohibited transfer of the property while permitting enjoyment of the same by inheritance. Despite existence of the said condition, the petitioner is still entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993, which was issued a few months after issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner, as the said GO has, in categorical terms, permitted the ex-servicemen to sell away their assigned lands after 10 years.”

¶41

Having regard to the contentions advanced, and by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of District Collector,

¶42

5

¶43

Visakhapatnam Vs. Juvvula Nagulu and two others and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.279 dated 04.07.2016, this Court is of the view that the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in keeping the property under prohibited list is unfounded and not sustainable. The District Collector is directed to pass appropriate orders in the case of the petitioner deleting the subject property from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22 A (1) (a) of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶44