IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 119 of 2008 Between: Moopuru Bharathi, W/o M.Gangi Reddy, R/o Drivers Kottalu, Y.M.R.Colony, Proddutur Town, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Tahsildhar (M.R.O.,) Chennur (M), Kadapa District. 3 The Village Revenue Officer, Upparapalli Panchayat, Dugganapalli (V), Chennur (M), Kadapa District. 4 The Joint Sub-Registrar, Chennur, Kadapa District. 5 The District Registrar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. ....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ (or) order (or) direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in not permitting the petitioner to execute a Regular Sale Deed in favour of V.Padmavathi, only one the sole ground that the letter issued by 3rd respondent to 4th respondent for the lands in Sy.No.117 an extent of ac.4.96 cents situated at Upparapalli Panchayat, Dugganapalli (V), Chennur (M), Kadapa District fell under Govt.lands, even though the petitioner have every right to sell the said property under "Freedom Fighter's Quota" which is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, direct the 4th respondent to permit the petition to execute a Regular Sale deed in favour of V.Padmavathamma for the land in Sy.No.117, an extent of ac.4.96 cents situated at Dugganapalli (V), Upparapalli Panchayat, Chennur (M), Kadapa District, according to the proceedings issued by 5th respondent to 4th respondent vide GI/1453/07, DT.24/9/07 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KADASANI SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the letter issued by the 3rd respondent – Village Revenue Officer, Upparapalli Panchayat, which was counter signed by the 2nd respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer, Chennur stating that the lands in Sy.Nos.90, 91, 97, 99, 100 and 117 are assigned lands and hence not entitled for registration. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased an extent of Ac.4.96 cents of land situated at Sy.No.117 of Upparapalli Panchayat, Dugganapalli Village, Chennur Mandal, Kadapa District from one K.Kaveramma and V.Ananda Rao through a registered sale deed on 15.4.1991 and when she wanted to sell the said land, the same was refused on the ground that on 20.8.2007 the 3rd respondent had issued a letter to the 2nd respondent stating that the subject matter of the land is a government land, and, therefore the same cannot be registered. It is stated that the government allotted the subject matter of land to Smt.K.Kaveramma, vendee of the petitioner, 62 years back on the application made by her husband Sri K.Srinivasacharulu, who was a freedom fighter and a patta was also issued in her name on 6.5.1952 for the said extent as her husband predeceased her. Subsequently on 6.12.1980, she executed a registered gift deed in favour of one V.Ananda Rao, the son of her younger sister as she was issueless. On 15.4.1991, Smt.K.Kaveramma and V.Ananda rao jointly sold the said property to the petitioner and since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. On 2.2.1999 the petitioner made an application to the 2nd respondent to mutate her name in the revenue records and accordingly after verification, her name was mutated in the revenue records. While the things stood thus, on 20.8.2007, the 3rd respondent issued a letter to the 2nd respondent stating that as per the RSR in column No.16 in respect of the subject matter of lands the names of pattadar or the names of the enamdars or the names of the managers are not mentioned and that there is only a ‘dart’ (.) and, therefore, the said lands fall under the category of government lands and hence are not entitled for registration. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader at length and perused the records produced. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land was allotted by the government in favour of the wife of a freedom fighter 62 years back and the petitioner purchased the same from her by paying valuable consideration and also got mutated her name in the revenue record and also obtained encumberance certificate which clearly shows that subject matter of property stands in the name of the petitioner. Further she is also paying revenue cist to the government since the date of purchase and, therefore, after a lapse of 62 years, the respondents cannot say that the subject matter of land is a government land and, therefore, not entitled for registration. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the resurvey register is the basic document to show the nature of the land and the subject matter of the land is recorded as the government land as per the entries in the resurvey register. It is further stated that the intending purchasers of the land made an application before the Tahsildar to give a certificate as per the resurvey register with regard to the land in S.No.117 and after verifying the records, the impugned letter was issued stating that the land is a government land. It is further stated that the particulars of the assignment granted for the said survey numbers are not available in any of the DKT registers and therefore the lands are government lands. Though it is averred in the counter affidavit that the subject matter of the lands are government lands, it is admitted in the counter affidavit that considering the application of Sri K.Srinivasacharulu, a freedom fighter, the land was allotted in favour of his wife Smt.K.Kaveramma, since he died. However it is stated that as per the records, the land was allotted in favour of K.Kaveramma as per darakast and hence the assignment or allotment made in favour of Smt.K.Kavermma was not under freedom fighters quota and it was a regular assignment and, therefore, she has no right to alienate or gift or mortgage or create any other interest of 3rd parties in respect of the said land and that the said assignment is only inheritable and not alienable and, therefore, the gift deed executed by the said Kaveramma in favour of Sri K.Ananda Rao has no validity in the eye of law. Except stating that the assignee is not entitled to alienate the land, no material is placed before the Court to show that any clause of the assignment prohibits such sale or gift. Section 2(1) of Act 9 of 1977 reads as under; “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- “Assigned Land” means lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor persons under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non-alienation and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings; and the word ‘assigned’ shall be construed accordingly”. A plain reading of Section 2(1) of the Act shows that the land, which was assigned by the Government subject to the condition of non- alienation can only be treated as an assigned land for the purpose of Act 9 of 1977. As a natural corollary, the prohibition of transfer as contained under Section 3 of the Act is attracted only in cases where the land is assigned subject to the condition of non-alienation. A similar view was taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in A.P.State Electricity Board Employees Union v. Joint Collector and others[1] while considering the issue of alienation of assigned lands granted in the year 1933 i.e. prior to G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.4.1954 which prohibits alienation of land given by the government. Ultimately, it was held that prohibition of alienation is only with prospective effect and not retrospectively and therefore there could be no prohibition to sell the lands assigned prior to issuance of the said G.O. In the instant case also, the lands were assigned in favour of Smt.K.Kaveramma, the vendee of the petitioner on 6.5.1952 i.e., prior to issuance of G.O.M.S.No.1142 and no material is placed before this Court to substantiate the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents. Simply because certain survey numbers are not available in any of the DKT registers, it cannot be said that the said lands are government lands. Further, on the application made by the petitioner to mutate her name in the revenue records in the year 1991, the authorities after verification, mutated her name in the revenue records against the said survey number. Therefore, now after a lapse of 62 years of granting the assignment, the respondents cannot contend that the lands are still government lands. It is surprising to note that the particulars of the assignments granted by the government are not traceable to determine whether a particular land is a DKT land or a government land. The records produced by the learned Government Pleader clearly indicate the assignment granted in favour of the vendee of the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the subject matter of the land is still a government land. That apart, the District Registrar, Kadapa in response to the representation made by the petitioner on 24.9.2007 has passed an order stating that according to the list circulated to his department Sy.No.117 does not find a place among the prohibited survey numbers while referring to the letter dated 20.8.2007 issued by the 3rd respondent and directed the Joint Sub-Registrar that he need not act on a simple letter given by 3rd respondent and can proceed with the registration of Sy.No.117. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the 4th respondent – Joint Sub Registrar, Kadapa is directed to register the land and release the documents, if they are otherwise in order. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.8.7.2008 Note:Furnish CC in one week (B/o) msv ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Tahsildhar (M.R.O.,) Chennur (M), Kadapa District. 3 The Village Revenue Officer, Upparapalli Panchayat, Dugganapalli (V), Chennur (M), Kadapa District. 4 The Joint Sub-Registrar, Chennur, Kadapa District. 5 The District Registrar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 6 2 CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyd. 7 2 CD copies. [1] 2008(1) ALD 29