HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.29427, 30096 & 30140 of 2011 Date : 21-12-2011 W.P.No.29427/2011 Between: Chedalavada Pramilamma and another .. Petitioner and Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri T.D. Pahni Kumar Counsel for respondent No.1 : -- Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri M. Sudhir The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These Writ Petitions raise common issues of fact and law. Hence, they are being heard and disposed of together. The petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste. During the lifetime of the father of the petitioners in W.P.No.29427/2011, respondent No.2 has sanctioned loan for purchase of agricultural land under a scheme called Land Purchase Scheme in the year 1991. Similarly, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.30096 and 30140/2011 were also sanctioned loans in the year 1991. Under this Scheme, lands are identified and respondent No.2 arranges sanction of loans in favour of the beneficiaries for payment of sale consideration to the owners of the lands willing to sell their lands to the beneficiaries. Accordingly, loans were sanctioned in favour of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions. The properties were accordingly registered on release of the loans which were paid as sale consideration to the vendors. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have repaid the entire loan amounts. The petitioners approached respondent No.3 for release of the registered sale deeds executed in their favour which were kept in his safe custody during the subsistence of the loan. As the documents were not returned by respondent No.3 even after repayment of loans, the petitioners filed these Writ Petitions. On behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit wherein he has not disputed the fact that the petitioners have repaid the loan amount in part and the Government has waived the balance outstanding loan amount and interest upto a maximum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Respondent No.3 however sought to support his action of withholding the registered sale deeds placing reliance on Circular Rc.No.NSF-1/1519/APSC/02, dated 1- 8-2005, issued by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.2. It is stated that as per the said circular, the beneficiaries cannot sell the lands allotted to them under the Land Purchase Scheme even though they have repaid the entire loan amount. In my opinion, once the loan amounts are repaid, the petitioners being the owners of the lands, are entitled to claim the original sale deeds. Even assuming that there is an embargo on the sale of lands so purchased, the same cannot be linked to the return of the original documents. Sri M. Sudhir, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 placed reliance on guideline No.6.6 of the guidelines and submitted that in view of the said guideline, the documents of the petitioners cannot be released. The said guideline reads as under : “The documents shall be kept under the safe custody of the Executive Director. A copy to be given to the beneficiaries.” The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this guideline is operative during the subsistence of the loans obtained by the petitioners for purchase of the lands. There is no clause in the guidelines which prohibits sale of the lands purchased by the petitioners. The purported circular was issued much subsequent to the framing of the guidelines. In the absence of a bar on alienation of the land, guideline No.6.6 needs to be construed in a rational and reasonable manner. So construed, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be accepted. As noted above, once the loan is discharged, the owner of the land acquires right to claim the original documents of title. No fetters can be imposed on such a right. Mere release of the original documents of title does not amount to permitting the petitioners to sell the lands. If the respondents feel that the beneficiaries are not entitled to sell the lands they shall be free to take appropriate action according to law in the event such sales are effected contrary to the Scheme. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petitions are allowed. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to release the registered documents of title in favour of the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, WPMP Nos.36436, 37300 and 37347 of 2011, filed in the respective Writ Petitions, are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 21-12-2011 AM