Dismissed

M. Satyanarayana v. Smt. Asif Jha

Telangana HC7 Dec 2012SA/420/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by an unsuccessful plaintiff. The court held that an absolute ban on alienation applies to assigned land, and the subsequent clause regarding the expiry of 10 years applies only to compensation issues upon government resumption and does not validate the sale deed executed during the ban period. Consequently, the sale deed was declare

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed with costs.

M. Satyanarayana Vs Smt. Asif Jha — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

+SECOND APPEAL No.420 of 2008

¶3

% 07-12-2012 #M.Satyanarayana ….Appellant Vs. $ Asif Jha and 2 others …. Respondents !Counsel for the Appellants : Sri N.Ravi Prasad Counsel for the Respondents : Sri V.Srinivas

¶4

<Gist :

¶5

>Head Note:

¶6

? Cases referred: 1) 2009(4) ALT 1 (DB) 2) 2005(5) ALT 635

¶7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶9

SECOND APPEAL No.420 of 2008

¶10

DATE: 07.12.2012

¶11

Between:

¶12

M.Satyanarayana, …… Appellant And

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Asif Jha and 2 others

¶15

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶16

SECOND APPEAL No.420 of 2008

¶17

JUDGMENT :

¶18

The unsuccessful plaintiff who lost the litigation in both the Courts below filed the second appeal. As the matter now stands, the suit filed by the plaintiff in the trial Court relates to one for perpetual injunction, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. He seeks perpetual injunction in respect of 121 Sq. yds of site in S.No.57 and Plot No.172 at Sultanvalva village, H/o.Champapet, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He seeks mandatory injunction as well as delivery of possession of 11 sq. yards shown in B-schedule lying towards north-western side in plot No.172 in which the defendants have constructed a room. It is the plaintiff’s case that he purchased A-schedule site of 121 Sq. yards under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 27.01.1993 from K.V.Ramachander, who obtained patta certificate for the said site from Tahsildar, Hayatnagar in the year 1982. According to the defendants, the first defendant is owner and possessor of plot of 100 Sq. yards having purchased the same under

¶19

registered sale deed dated 19.03.1996. It is further contended that the alleged sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has no value in the eye of law. After trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit and on appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

¶20

2) The appellant’s counsel seeks to put forth substantial questions of law in this second appeal to the effect that there is no bar of alienation of assigned land by K.V.Ramachander in favour of the plaintiff after a period of 10 years of its grant, even as per terms of Ex.A-3 patta certificate and that therefore, the Courts below erred in non suiting the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff’s sale deed Ex.A-1 is illegal. Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 27.01.1993 executed by K.V.Ramachander in favour of the plaintiff was in respect of 121 Sq. yards in plot No.172. It was sold under Ex.A-1 with a specific averment in Ex.A-1 that the land is not an assigned land within the meaning of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act No.9 of 1977(in short, the Act). In Ex.A-1 the vendor did not trace as to how he got title for 121 Sq. yards of site in Plot No.172. He simply stated that he is absolute owner and possessor of the said land and nothing more. The plaintiff filed Ex.A-3 patta certificate for the site assigned to his vendor

¶21

K.V.Ramachander as Ex.A-3. It shows that it is Form-D patta issued in favour of K.V.Ramachander for plot No.172 measuring 100 Sq. yards in S.No.57 of Sultanvalva village. Though the lower appellate Court commented that plot No.172 is interpolated in Ex.A-3, for naked eye observation, there was no such interpolation of plot number. Ex.A-3 was stated to have been issued by Tahsildar, Hayatnagar Taluk in file No.B6/4753/80. Date of issue of patta is left blank not only on the top column but also under signature of Tahsildar. Boundary columns in Ex.A-3 are left blank. It was claimed to have been issued to Ramachander in the year 1982. Ramachander was not examined. No records or registers from office of the Tahsildar were summoned to show date of such issue and authentication of the said patta. It is not known how Ramachander acquired 121 Sq. yards when Ex.A3 stated to have assigned only 100 Sq. yards to him.

¶22

3) Apart from the said contentions and suspicious features found in Ex.A-3 patta certificate, it is contended that the site is inalienable as per terms of the said patta. On the other hand, it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the site is alienable after 10 years of its issue in view of condition No.8(i) contained therein and that after a period of 10 years,

¶23

the provisions of the Act have no application to this land. If the appellant’s submission on this aspect is to be accepted, the appellant has to prove that Ex.A-1 sale deed was executed after 10 years of issue of Ex.A-3 patta. When Ex.A-3 is silent as to the date of its issue and when no evidence aliendi was let in by the plaintiff/appellant to prove date of issue of Ex.A-3 in favour of K.V.Ramachander, the plaintiff may not be entitled to rely on condition No.8(i) of the patta.

¶24

4) Assuming for a moment for the sake of argument that Ex.A-1 sale deed dated 27.01.1993 in favour of the plaintiff is 10 years after date of issue of Ex.B-3 patta certificate, it has to be seen whether the provisions of the Act are applicable to this case. The appellant’s counsel placed reliance on Joint Collector, Rangareddy District V. P.Harinath Reddy^[1] and Shaik Bade V. District Collector, Visakhapatnam^[2] of this Court in this regard and contended that since the ban period on alienation had expired by the date of Ex.A-1 sale deed dated 27.01.1993, it is a valid sale of property in favour of the plaintiff. Details of clauses relating to ban on alienation in the above two reported decisions are not explicit. The Division Bench was considering in Harinath Reddy (1 supra) the

¶25

aspect relating to revised assignment policy issued under G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.07.1958.

¶26

5) The relevant clauses imposing ban on alienation in

¶27

Ex.A-3 patta certificate are as follows:

¶28

“1. That the assignee shall have no right of alienation of house site assigned to him.

¶29

8. That the Government may resume and re-enter the site but on the infringement of any of the conditions of the assignment.

¶30

(i) If without the previous approval of the Collector in writing the land is alienated by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease of any kind, within a period of ten years from the date of its grant or ceases to be owned by the original grantee or his legal heir owing to sale by process of law, of otherwise, for a like period the grant will be liable to be resumed by Government who will be entitled to re-enter and take possession of the site without payment of any compensation either for any improvement made to it or for any buildings constructed on it. This prohibition do not however, apply to the hypothecation of the sites (together with any building erected on it) to Government under the Land improvement and Agriculturists Loans Act or to a cooperative Society nor does it operated to defer payment of compensation when such lands are subsequently acquired under the land acquisition Act, the Power of resuming the grant and ordering re-entry referred to above will vest in the Collector.”

¶31

6) Clause-1 of the patta certificate imposes absolute ban on right of alienation of house site on the assignee. Clause 8(i) of the certificate deals with a different fact situation enunciated in that clause. It is contended by the respondents’

¶32

counsel that clause 8(i) relates to payment of compensation by the Government for the constructions made in the assigned site in case the Government resumes assigned land on the ground of the assignee alienating the assigned site after a period of 10 years. It is further contended that in case the Government resumes the assigned site after a period of 10 years, then the Government is not liable to pay compensation, as per the said clause 8(i). This Court is of the opinion that clause 8(i) of the patta is not an exception to clause-1 of the same patta. There is absolute prohibition of alienation of the assigned site by the assignee viz., K.V.Ramachander. Clause 8(i) of the patta does not confer any right or water down clause-1 for alienating the assigned land after a period of 10 years. On the other hand clause 8(i) also reiterates that the assignee cannot alienate the assigned site even after 10 years without permission of the collection. In that view of the matter, Ex.A-1 sale deed relating to transfer of assigned land is null and void under Section 3(3) of the Act. When the plaintiff has no legal title for the site in question and when Ex.A-1 sale deed does not confer title on the plaintiff for the suit property, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for possession of part of the said site muchless for mandatory

¶33

injunction. When according to the plaintiff, the defendants encroached into part of the suit site and made constructions, it cannot be said that they are not in possession of the entire site. The plaintiff who purchased assigned land from an assignee has not come to Court with clean hands and therefore, in any event, the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled for the discretionary and equitable relief of permanent injunction in his favour. In my opinion, the Courts below came to a right conclusion against the plaintiff and I find that no substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal.

¶34

7) In the result, the second appeal is dismissed with

¶35

costs.

¶36

_______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶37

December 07, 2012 NOTE: L.R.Copy to be marked. (b/o) ksh

¶38

[1] 2009(4) ALT 1 (DB)

¶39

[2] 2005(5) ALT 635

M. Satyanarayana v. Smt. Asif Jha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Satyanarayana v. Smt. Asif Jha

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

P. Rama Rao Vs P. Adinarayana

Gajavalli Vidya Naga Venkata Sriramulu Vs Gajavalli Leela Venkata Kumar , Murali Kumar

P.Nagabhushanam Vs Ch.Narasimha Chari and 10 Others

M.Venkata Satyaramu, Vs Nunna Veera Venkata Narasimha Murthy

Smt.Lakshmi Narsamma, W/o.late Ramulu, Aged 75 Years Vs v.Gandhi

Smt. Shanta Govind Raj Vs Santosh Industries