Allowed

Mandepudi Masthanamma, v. Government of Ap

Telangana HC7 Apr 2014WP/6121/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that refusing to furnish a market value certificate for assigned lands allotted to ex-service men prior to 1954 was erroneous. The petition was disposed of, directing the Sub Registrar to process the conveyance after verifying documents.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub Registrar to furnish the market value and process the deed of conveyance after verifying the petitioner's documents.

Mandepudi Masthanamma, Vs Government of Ap — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.6121 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The case of the petitioner is that he own Ac.2.05 cents of land in survey No.556 and Ac.2.42 cents of land in survey No.559 of Gorantla Village, Guntur Rural, Guntur District. The petitioner intended to dispose of the above land and requested the 3^rd respondent to furnish market value certificate in respect of the subject lands on 06.02.2014. To surprise of the petitioner, it was informed that no valuation certificate would be granted as they are in prohibitory list communicated by the Tahsildar (the 2^nd respondent) showing status of the land as assigned land.

¶4

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in survey No.556 to an extent of Ac.2.05 cents was assigned to the person by name E. Samuel by an order dated 27.02.1923 and the land to an extent of Ac.2.42 cents in survey No.559 was assigned to the person by name S. Kotesh on 27.02.1923. These two persons were Ex-Service Men and the lands were assigned to them in the said capacity. These two assignees sold the land to another person and from them the father of the petitioner purchased the said lands in 1953 and 1961 respectively and thereafter the petitioner is in possession of the said land. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as evident from the report of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, it is clear that land in survey Nos.526/A and 547 to 550 were assigned to Ex-Service Men. The total land was an extent of Ac.12.35 cents against survey Nos.556 and 559. Those two names referred above were mentioned as assignees. The learned counsel therefore submits that it is clear, as per the above proceedings that the assignment was made much prior to 1954. There was no prohibition on alienation of land assigned prior to 1954.

¶5

3. The learned counsel further submits that even according to Government Policy, the Ex-Service Men are entitled to alienate the land after 10 years from the date of assignment. Even if the said policy of the Government as reflected in G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963 and G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993 are taken into consideration, the assignment made in the year 1923 can be alienated after 10 years. Thus the title was validly vested on the vendor of the father of the petitioner and after purchase in the year 1953 and 1961 respectively, the family of the petitioner is in continuous possession of the said land. Learned counsel therefore submits that the objection raised by the Sub Registrar that the market value cannot be furnished on the ground that the land is shown as assigned land is erroneous.

¶6

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that as per the instructions furnished to him, since these two properties are assigned lands, the Sub Registrar has rejected the request of the petitioner to furnish market value and the said decision cannot be said as erroneous.

¶7

5. As per documents enclosed to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it appears that assignment was made to E. Samuel and S. Kotesh as Ex-Service Men on 27.02.1923. The assignment is not in dispute. Thereafter, sale took place and the vendor of the father of the petitioner purchased much earlier and he sold to the father of the petitioner in the year 1953 and 1961 respectively. It is also not in dispute that assignment made prior to 1954 are not prohibited from alienation. Even according to the Government policy, if the land is allotted to Ex-Service Men, they are entitled to alienate the property after a period of 10 years of enjoyment.

¶8

6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and the documents enclosed to the writ petition, decision of the Sub Registrar

¶9

to refuse to furnish the market value on the ground that the land was assigned was erroneous.

¶10

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the Sub Registrar enclosing all the relevant documents in his support. After verifying authenticity of the documents presented by the petitioner, the Sub Registrar shall furnish market value, and process the deed of conveyance of the concerned land in survey No.556 to an extent of Ac.2.05 cents and land in survey No.559 to an extent of Ac.2.42 cents of Gorantla Village, Guntur Rural, Guntur District, as and when the same is presented in accordance with Indian Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.

¶11

_______________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J

¶12

Date: 07.04.2014 ska

Mandepudi Masthanamma, v. Government of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandepudi Masthanamma, v. Government of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Khayyum Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Southern Power Distribution Company of a.P.Ltd., Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

A. Anjaneyulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. through Its Prl.

Mala Eswaramma, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Hi-Tec Valves, Vs Union of India

Attlurimugappagari Ramamohan Reddy, S/o.a.Subba Reddy Vs The Union of India