IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4055 of 2008 Between: Madey Jonas Vijay Raj, S/o. Late Vijay Sundar, R/o. D.No. 19-93-A, Satya Sai Nagar, Saligram Post, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub Registrar, Lankelapalem, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Tahasildar, Parvada Mandal, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not releasing document No. P.312/2007 which is pending before the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable violative of the article 14, 300-A of the constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Registration act apart from that contrary to the GO Ms.No. 1117/Revenue dt. 11-11-1993 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MRT.N.MRANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 4055 of 2008 Order: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not releasing the document No. P 312/2007, which is pending before him for registration, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 1117, dated 11.11.1993. According to the petitioner, his father was allotted the land admeasuring Ac.3.52 cents in Survey No. 365/2 of Desapatrunipalem village in the year 1993 under Ex-Servicemen quota, and after the death of his father, he sold the said property for his family necessities and presented the documents for registration of the said land in favour of one Kallam Srinivasa Reddy and Kallam Santhi before the 1st respondent on 17.12.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the 1st respondent has registered the said documents, he is not releasing the same on the ground that there are instructions from the District Collector not to register the assigned lands allotted to the Ex-Servicemen. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The contention of the petitioner is that as per G.O. Ms. No. 1117, dated 11.11.1993, the ex-servicemen and freedom fighters are entitled to alienate the properties assigned to them after expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment, and in view of that the alienation made by the petitioner, being the successor of the assignee, after 10 years from the date of assignment, is permissible and legal. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of this Court reported in Pothala Saidamma v. Government of A.P., and another[1], wherein this Court considered similar issue and held thus: “Basically, such assignments are not in favour of landless poor. Secondly, the Government itself issued G.O. Ms. No. 1117, dated 11.11.1993, permitting the assignees of such land to alienate the same, after expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment. It is not in dispute that the assignment in favour of husband of the petitioner was made on 28.05.1981 and 10 years have already expired. Being the successor of the assignee, the petitioner is entitled to transfer such land. Therefore, the G.O. Ms. No. 1021, dated 01.10.2003, insofar as it relates to land of Ac.5.00 assigned to the husband of the petitioner, shall stand set aside. The 2nd respondent shall entertain the document that may be presented by the petitioner, without reference to the said G.O. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” The petitioner submits that since he is also similarly placed person, the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment, for which the learned Government Pleader for Revenue has also agreed. Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, and in view of the agreed stand taken by both the counsel, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The 1st respondent-Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, is directed to entertain the documents presented by the petitioner, particularly in the light of the judgment of this Court in Pothala Saidamma v. Government of A.P., and another (1 supra), and release the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 28.02.2008 Nsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} [1] 2007 (6) ALD 160