THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA. W.P. No. 9795 of 2008 Oral order: The petitioners are ex-servicemen. They having served the Indian Army in diﬀerent capacities, retired from service. While in service and at about the time of their retirement, they were assigned diﬀerent extents of agricultural land - Acs. 4.87, 4.87 and 4.99 in Sy. No. 319/2, 327-1 and 331-1 respectively of Polipalle village, Bheemunipatnam, by the then Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 30.06.1967, and since then they claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the 1st petitioner to meet the marriage expenditure of his grand daughter, the 2nd petitioner to meet the marriage expenses of his daughter and the 3rd petitioner to meet the marriage expenses of one of his three sons and settle the other sons who are unemployed, made representations dated 07.02.2007, 14.02.2007 and 26.02.2007 through the District Sainik Welfare Oﬃcer, requesting the 1st respondent, namely the District Collector, Vizianagaram, to grant permission to sell the land assigned to them. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent directed the 3rd respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram, to conduct an enquiry and submit his report. The 3rd respondent having conducted an enquiry, submitted his report to the 2nd respondent, namely the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Vizianagaram, recommending grant of permission to sell the land. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent having considered the recommendations, sent proposals to the 1st respondent to grant permission to the petitioners to sell the land having regard to the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1117, dated 11.11.1993, which permitted selling away of assigned land by ex-servicemen after ten years. However, the 1st respondent, vide separate endorsements dated 07.02.2008, rejected the request of the petitioners for grant of permission to sell the lands assigned to them on the ground that they are getting regular income and there is no need for them to sell the land, and that grant of permission to sell the land would defeat the very spirit of assignment. Assailing the said endorsements, the petitioners ﬁled the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when G.O. Ms. No. 743, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1963 and G.O. MS. No. 1117, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 11.11.1993, issued by the Government themselves permit alienation of the assigned land by ex- servicemen, the 1st respondent could not have refused permission to sell the lands assigned to them, and as such, the impugned endorsements made by the 1st respondent, rejecting the applications of the petitioners for grant of permission to sell the lands assigned to them, are illegal and arbitrary. He thus prayed that the impugned endorsements made by the 1st respondent be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. The 1st respondent ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents, reiterating the counter- averments, inter alia submitted that the lands were assigned to ex-servicemen by the government as a mark of gratitude for the service rendered by them to the nation. Though the ex-servicemen, in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1117, dated 11.11.1993, can sell the lands assigned to them after a period of ten years, the same is not a blanket permission, and they have to satisfy the conditions speciﬁed in G.O. Ms. No. 743, dated 30.04.1963. The petitioners having not satisﬁed the conditions mentioned in the latter G.O., are not entitled to sell, and if permission is granted to sell the land, it would defeat the very purpose of assignment. He further submitted that the lands assigned to the petitioners is agricultural lands, and given the proximity of the lands to Visakhapatnam, there is every likelihood of the vendees of the petitioners, making using of the land for purposes other than agriculture. Since the petitioners are getting income by way of pension, there is no need for them to sell the lands, and as such, no exception can be taken to the action of the 1st respondent in making the impugned endorsement, refusing to grant permission to the petitioners to sell the lands assigned to them. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. The petitioners, just before their retirement from Indian Army, were assigned the agricultural lands in question, in the year 1967. They having retired from service subsequently, are ex-servicemen. The petitioners, to meet the ﬁnancial needs of their family, made applications to the 1st respondent to permit them to sell the lands assigned to them. Though on enquiry, as directed by the 1st respondent, the 2nd and 3rd respondents submitted favourable reports recommending, grant of permission to the petitioners to sell the lands in question in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1117, dated 11.11.1993, the fact remains, the 1st respondent by reason of the impugned endorsements, rejected the applications of the petitioners for grant of permission to sell the lands assigned to them. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, by order dated 30.04.2008, in W.P.M.P. No. 12900 of 2008, observed that the reasoning given by the Collector, Vizianagram, for rejecting the request of the petitioners that since they are pensioners and getting regular income on the land, there is no need to sell the lands, which was assigned to them, appears to be very peculiar and not known to law, and so observing, directing the respondents to ﬁle counter. Pursuant to the said order, the 1st respondent ﬁled counter aﬃdavit on 06.07.2008, reiterating the very stand taken by him in the impugned endorsements, i.e., since the petitioners are getting income, there is no need for them to sell the land, and that if permission to sell the lands is given it would defeat the very purpose of assignment. However, curiously, the 1st respondent, purportedly reconsidering the request of the petitioners, vide separate proceedings dated 12.07.2008, passed orders permitting them to sell the lands, subject to the result of the writ petition, and it is appropriate to extract, the relevant portion of one such order, passed in the case of the 1st petitioner, which reads as follows: In pursuance of the representation of the applicant for reconsideration and considering the recommendations of the Tahsildar, Bhogapuram and Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Vizianagaram, and taking a sympathetic view of the matter, Sri Bhugata Pydi Raju S/o. Late Pydayya, ex-serviceman is hereby permitted to sell the land in Sy. No. 319/2 measuring Acs. 4.87 cts of assigned land in Polipalli village of Bhogapuram Mandal in terms G.O. Ms. No. 1117, Revenue (ASN-I) Department, Dt. 11.11.1993 read with G.O. Ms. No. 743, Revenue (B) Department, Dt. 30.04.1963. This is, however, subject to the ﬁnal orders of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 2nd cited. The 1st respondent once having rejected the request of the petitioners for grant of permission to sell the lands assigned to them, I fail to understand how he could have passed the above-mentioned orders, permitting the petitioners to sell the lands, and more so when he has taken a defending stand in the counter-aﬃdavit, of the orders passed by him earlier rejecting the request of the petitioners for grant of permission to sell the lands assigned to them. In fact, there is no reason explained by the 1st respondent for taking a volte face stand and permitting the petitioners to sell the land. Be that as it may, it is the case of the 1st respondent that grant of permission to sell the lands in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1117, dated 11.11.1993, is not automatic, but is subject to the conditions mentioned in G.O. Ms. No. 743, dated 30.04.1963, the fact remains, a perusal of Clause 5(i) of G.O. Ms. No. 743, dated 30.04.1963, would make it clear that the land assigned should not be sold or otherwise alienated for a period of ten years. The only embargo placed in the said clause, is that the assignee, should not sell or alienate the land for a period of ten years. However, later considering the report submitted by the Collector, Visakhapatnam, that applications were being received by him from ex-servicemen requesting permission to sell away the assigned lands on the grounds of medical treatment, old age, clearing of liabilities and several other reasons, and the clariﬁcation sought by him, having regard to fact that G.O. Ms. No. 743, dated 30.04.1963, permits to sell away the assigned lands after ten years, the government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 1117, dated 11.11.1993, partially modifying G.O. Ms. No. 743, dated 30.04.1963, and para 4 thereof, reads thus: Government have examined the matter in detail. In partial modiﬁcation of the orders issued in G.O. 1st read above, government accordingly direct that ex-servicemen are free to sell away their assigned lands after a period of ten years. From the above modiﬁcation, it is clear that the government have themselves decided to permit the ex- servicemen to sell away the lands assigned to them after a period of ten years. When the government have themselves decided to permit the ex-servicemen to sell away the lands assigned to them after a period of ten years, I fail to understand as to how the 1st respondent could have rejected the request of the petitioners for grant of permission to sell away the lands assigned to them, and more so when the request made by the petitioners to sell away the lands assigned to them was after expiry of 30 years, which obviously is after expiry of the ten years period fixed in the G.O.. The 1st respondent, both in the impugned endorsement as well as the counter, except stating that the petitioners are earning income and getting pension, and as such, no permission need be granted to sell away the lands and that if permission to sell the lands is granted it would defeat the very purpose of assignment, has not shown any provision or rule or clause, either in any statute or G.O., which prohibited sale of the assigned lands after expiry of ten years. On the other hand, the G.Os., in terms of which the 1st respondent refused to grant permission, themselves permitted the ex-servicemen to sell away the lands assigned to them after a period of ten years. In that view of the matter, the impugned endorsements made by the 1st respondent rejecting the applications of the petitioners for grant of permission to sell away the lands assigned to them are set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by the 1st respondent, during the pendency of the writ petition, granting permission to sell away the lands to the petitioner, subject to the result of the writ petition, are made absolute. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 15th July, 2008 KSR