THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.17433 of 2008 ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 viz., District Collector, Kadapa District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa and Tahsildar, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District to issue “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) in order to enable him to alienate an extent of Ac.2.00 of land by way of gift and a consequential direction to the 4th Respondent-Sub-Registrar, Kadapa (Rural), Registration and Assurances to register the said document. The petitioner claims that he purchased Ac.3.00 of land situated in Sy.No.75/6 of Mamilla Palli Village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.1434/2006 on 16-02- 2006. Prior to the said sale, the said land underwent sale transactions by means of registered documents dated 07-08-1970, 12-08-1975 and 18-07-1978. The petitioner along with his brother with a desire to gift an extent of Ac.2.00 of land in favour of their sister Smt.Danthu Girija approached the 4th Respondent by filing a representation on 26-02-2008. The 4th Respondent insisted upon the petitioner to obtain NOC from the Respondents 1 to 3. As such, the petitioner submitted a representation on 15-04-2008 seeking copies of the report of the M.R.O. dated 24-01- 2006 wherein he had recommended to the 2nd Respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer for issuing the No Objection Certificate. The said representation was forwarded to the 3rd Respondent-Tahsildar on 01-05- 2008. In the meanwhile, acting upon the recommendation of the M.R.O., dated 24-01-2006, 2nd Respondent had issued the NOC vide proceedings F.Dis.E.36/2006, dated 31-01-2006. The petitioner enclosed the said certificate and again approached the 4th Respondent to accept the same. Despite the same, the 4th Respondent kept insisting for a fresh certificate. The petitioner therefore was constrained to make a representation to the District Collector again on 12-05-2008. As the said representation did not evoke any response, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief. Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the subject land is a private land purchased for valid consideration under a registered document and there has never been a dispute that the land belonged to the Government. In order to prove, the learned counsel has drawn attention to the recommendations of the 3rd Respondent, dated 24-01-2006 and the No Objection Certificate granted by the 2nd Respondent dated 31-01-2006. That being so, the insistence on the part of the 4th Respondent for a NOC is not proper. Ordinarily, the relief in the Writ Petition would have been granted basing on the said proceedings. However, the 3rd Respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer has filed a counter taking a somersault stating that the subject land is a Government land. In view of this stand, this Court directed him to justify the same by filing additional counter-affidavit and causing production of the concerned record. Accordingly, the 3rd Respondent filed an additional counter and also produced the Resettlement Register (RSR). Before examining the said register, it is necessary to traverse the earlier proceedings. The vendors of the petitioners viz., Smt.V.R.Indiramma and Smt.V.R.Premamma, who were the predecessors-in-title approached the 1st Respondent for a No Objection Certificate in order to alienate the subject land to the petitioner. The 1st Respondent in turn forwarded the application to the 3rd Respondent for enquiry and report. Accordingly, the 3rd Respondent caused an enquiry through the Additional Revenue Inspector, C.K.Dinne and found that the said applicants were in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The 3rd Respondent examined the past transactions and found that the aforesaid persons purchased the said land under registered documents dated 18-07-1978 and their possession and enjoyment was recorded in the adangals. He also verified the RSR and found that the land is categorised as patta land and was recorded in the name of one, Sanam Reddy Ramalinga Reddy. He also found that at one point of time the land was resumed on 21-11-2001 for the purpose of house sites, but in a suit O.S.No.164 of 2002 instituted in the Court of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa by the vendors of the petitioners, the suit was decreed observing that the defendant therein viz., Mandal Surveyor could not adduce any evidence or filed any material to show that the land was resumed. Thus, on a thorough enquiry conducted by him, the 3rd Respondent found that the subject land is not Government land and therefore he recommended to issue No Objection Certificate for further transactions. The 2nd Respondent accordingly accepted the Report of the 3rd Respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer and issued No Objection Certificate by his orders dated 31-01-2006. The aforesaid proceedings culminating in the issuance of a No Objection Certificate are not in dispute. Besides the same, the 3rd Respondent in his counter filed in this Writ Petition even while admitting that the subject land is private land as per RSR has very strangely stated that the said land was assigned to one P.Papaiah and the said assignee sold away the land to one, Samudrala Raju, who in turn sold away the land to V.Laxminarasimhacharyulu and the vendors of the petitioner purchased the same from Laxminarasimhacharyulu. On this premise, the 3rd Respondent seeks to assert that the subject land is a Government land. As mentioned above, when the 3rd Respondent was confronted as to how the patta land could be assigned, and directed him to place the assignment proceedings before this Court, the 3rd Respondent has filed his additional counter. It is stated therein that he requested the Sub- Registrar not to register the land in question on the basis of the proceedings issued for the classification of the subject land as assigned to Papaiah in the year 1960. However, no record is produced before this Court showing the assignment proceedings. It is stated that the relevant record is not available in the office and could not be traced. He has, however, placed the RSR which is the basic land record. A perusal of the said register shows that there is an entry relating to the nature of land showing the same as patta land. If really the land was later re- classified, the same should reflect in the said register. There is no such re-entry or re-classification found in the register. In fact, no such re-classification can be made without following due procedure. Despite the same, the 3rd Respondent seeks to justify placing reliance on some written instructions said to have been given to the then Government Pleader in connection with a Writ Petition No.11382 of 2004 in which reference was made that the land was assigned to one, Papaiah. It may be mentioned that the same writ petition was referred even in his recommendation letter, dated 24-01-2006. Absence of material showing the land as granted land in juxtaposition to the material referred above, would evidently show that the 3rd Respondent is not acting in a fair manner. On examining the basic register viz., RSR and the enquiry conducted which culminated in the recommendation letter dated 24-01- 2006 and the NOC dated 31-01-2006 coupled with series of transactions at least since 1970 and the admission of the 3rd Respondent himself, and the Decree in O.S.No.164 of 2002 leads to the only conclusion that the subject land is patta land. In this view of the matter, the respondents 1 and 2 are not justified in denying to issue No Objection Certificate sought for by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents 1 to 3 to issue No Objection Certificate sought for by the petitioner and the 4th respondent, on production of the No Objection Certificate, is directed to register the document that may be presented by the petitioner for registration. No costs. ____________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 04th February, 2011. skmr THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.17433 of 2008 Date : 04-02-2011 Between : J.Lakshmi Narayana .. Petitioner And The State of A.P. rep. by the District Collector, Kadapa and 3 Others .. Respondents