Allowed

N.Ramaiah v. the District Collector and 3 Others

Telangana HC11 Mar 2011WP/5271/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed by an ex-serviceman challenging a Sub Registrar's refusal to register a sale deed without a No Objection Certificate. Relying on a 1993 G.O. and precedents, the court held that prohibitions lapse after ten years, directing the fourth respondent to process the documents.

What did the court decide?

Directed the fourth respondent to entertain and process documents for sale registration without insisting on No Objection Certification from Respondents 1 to 3.

N.Ramaiah Vs the District Collector and 3 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5271 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of Ac.4.70 cents of land in Survey No.309-1 of Kurugunta Village, Ananthapur Mandal and District. It is stated that while he was working as Havaldar in Indian Military, the said land was assigned in his favour in the year 1 9 7 0 vide proceedings dated 29.12.1970. Since the date of assignment, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property by raising ground nut and redgram crops. While so, due to financial needs, he intended to sell the property to the proposed vendors. For that purpose, he approached the fourth respondent-Sub Registrar, Anantapur Rural, to gather necessary particulars. The fourth respondent is said to have insisted that the petitioner must obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the revenue authorities. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶6

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under G.O.Ms.No.1117, Revenue (Assignment-1) Department, dated 11.11.1993, alienation of the assigned land by the ex-serviceman is prohibited for a period of ten years from the date of issue of DKT patta and after the expiry of the prohibitory period, its character will change and the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, can no longer apply to the said land.

¶7

In Shaik Bade Vs. District Collector, Visakhapatna m^[1] , this Court, while dealing with Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands

¶8

(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and G.O.Ms.No. 1117, dated 11.11.1993 held that an assignee, who is an ex-serviceman is not prohibited to sell the assigned land after ten years from the date of issuance of patta.

¶9

In another case in L.Uma Maheswar Reddy and ors Vs. The District Collector (Writ Petition No. 8536 of 2009, dated 24.4.2009), when the Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed on the ground that the land kept for registration is an assigned land on earlier occasion, this Court observed that though the land was assigned at the initial stages, with the transfer thereof in favour of the vendors of the petitioners after expiry of the prohibitory period, its character has changed and the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers ) Act, 1977 no longer apply to the said land and therefore the fourth respondent is not justified in insisting for No Objection Certificate to register the document.

¶10

In view of the above judgments, since the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993, while clarifying its earlier orders, directed that ex-servicemen are free to sell away their assigned lands after a period of ten years, and since in instant case, the assignment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner was made on 29.12.1970, the fourth respondent is not justified in insisting for No Objection Certificate to register the document.

¶11

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to entertain and process the documents that are presented by the petitioner in respect of the land mentioned above, in accordance with law, without insisting on submission of ‘No Objection Certification’ from Respondents 1 to 3. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶13

Date: 11.03.2011 va

¶14

[1] 2005 (5) ALT 635

N.Ramaiah v. the District Collector and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Ramaiah v. the District Collector and 3 Others

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

Boya Eramma Vs The District Collector

S. Rasool Basha Vs The District Collector

Bokkisam Srinivasa Rao Vs STate of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its Principal Secrtary

Y.Manjula Vs the District Collector and 3 Others

Smt.a.Narayanamma and 6 Others Vs the Govt of A.P Rep.by Its Commissioner and 2 Others

V.M.Rama Subba Reddy Vs The District Co-Operative Central Bank Rep.by its