Allowed

Veeraballi Krishna Reddy, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC6 Aug 2012WP/22430/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that prohibition on alienation of assigned lands effective from 1954 does not apply to land assigned before that year. Consequently, the petitioners' request to declare a government letter prohibiting registration illegal was allowed. Respondents were directed to process sale deeds for such land.

What did the court decide?

WP allowed with direction to respondent No. 4 to register the sale deed without treating the land as assigned land and disregarding the letter dated 09.09.2010.

Veeraballi Krishna Reddy, Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22430 of 2012

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in issuing letter, dated 09.09.2010, pursuant to the instructions of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the 4^th respondent including the land of the petitioners admeasuring Ac.0.90 cents covered by Sy.No.584/2C2 of Peruru Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, in the list of lands prohibited for registration, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioners that Ac.3.32 cents was the patta land belonging to one Pallekonda Venkata Swamy, resident of Kotturu Village, H/o. Cherlopalle, Chandragiri Taluk; that he sold an extent of Ac.1.80 cents of land to one Vaikuntam Poli Naidu, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.1452 of 1946, dated 31.07.1946. Thereafter, the sons of Vaikuntam Poli Naidu sold the said extent of land to one Koniki Yerram Naidu. The petitioners purchased an extent of Ac.0.90 cents from one of the sons of Koniki Yerram Naidu by name Buchi Naidu.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioners is that though it was a patta land, the same is included in the list of lands prohibited for registration pursuant to the orders of the 3^rd respondent, dated 09.09.2010, and that the 4^th respondent is not registering the sale deed, dated 16.04.2012, basing on the said letter. When the matter has come up on earlier occasion, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions on what basis the said land is included in the list of the Government lands. Based on the written instructions obtained from the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal of Chittoor District, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that originally the land was assigned to one Kummara Venkataswamy of Cherlopalle Village vide DKT No.34/4/50, dated 08.12.1940, as he was

¶8

landless poor person. It is stated that part of the said land was already resumed for providing the same to the Gazetted Officers Cooperative Society and the rest of the land was sold by the original assignee.

¶9

This Court has already held that prohibition for alienation of the assigned lands came into force in the year 1954 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954 and for the earlier assignment there was no legal sanction for prohibiting the lands at all. As it is not in dispute that the subject land was originally assigned on 08.12.1940, there is no impediment to register the document, if the petitioners want to sell the aforesaid land.

¶10

For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to respondent No.4 that in case the petitioners present any document for sale of the aforesaid land, he is directed to receive and process the same for registration without treating the said land as assigned land and without basing on letter, dated 09.09.2010, of the 3^rd respondent. However, it is made clear that it is open to the registering authority to verify the document in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908.

¶11

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.28749 of 2012 stands closed.

¶12

________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶13

Date: 06.08.2012. ES

Veeraballi Krishna Reddy, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeraballi Krishna Reddy, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Obi Reddy, Vs .The District Collector, Anantapur.

Sona Singh Vs The District Collector

Hajeera Begum Vs The Branch Manager

Chamakoora Indraja Reddy, Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Padmamma Vs Principle Secretary Revenue( L.a)

T.Narayanamma Vs The Government of A.P