*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +WRIT PETITION NO.19419 OF 2008 % 16.02.2009 # S.Zakhir. …Petitioner And $ The District Collector and others. …Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Prasada Rao ^ Counsel for respondent : G.P. for Revenue < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19419 of 2008 ORDER: One Mr. A. Seshappa was assigned an extent of 65 cents of land in Survey No.49/1 of Kakkalapalli Village, Anantapur District way back on 25.06.1934 by the then British Government. It is stated that there was a condition to the effect that the assignee shall not sell the land within the period of 10 years from the date of assignment. He sold that land in favour of Nabi Sab and Kamal Sab in the year 1947. In the next year i.e., 1948, the land was purchased by one Mr.Hussain Peera. From out of 65 cents, the petitioner purchased 10 cents in the year 1994. With a view to sell that property, the petitioner presented a document before the Sub-Registrar, Ramnagar, 4th respondent herein for registration. He insisted on submission of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Revenue Department. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Tahsildar, Anantapur Mandal, 3rd respondent herein. After verification of the matter, the 3rd respondent recommended for issuance of No Objection Certificate to the petitioner, through his letter, dated 02.04.2008 addressed to the District Collector, Anantapur District, 1st respondent herein. The grievance of the petitioner is that the NOC is not being given to him, on the ground that the land was included in the prohibition register and the respondents are refusing to permit him to sell the land. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that even for the lands that were assigned in the year 1934, the prohibition of alienation applies and the petitioner cannot insist on issuance of NOC. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It is not uncommon that whenever Government assigns land, it imposes conditions including those, which prohibit alienation of land to third parties. While in some cases, the prohibition is absolute, in others, it is for a particular period. For instance, in case of assignment in favour of ex-servicemen, the Government issued orders limiting the prohibition for 10 years. Further, the pattern of assignment and the conditions therefor radically differ with the change of Governments. The petitioner asserts that in the original assignment made in favour of Seshappa, there existed a condition prohibiting alienation for a period of 10 years. That fact stands proved with the registration of documents in the years 1947, 1948 and 1994 in favour of different persons. The letter, dated 02.04.2008 addressed by the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent vouches for this. The petitioner and his predecessors were issued pattadar pass books. In a way, it can be said that the view taken by respondents 1 to 3 is arbitrary and amounts to indiscriminate exercise of powers. Without any reason, the land purchased by the petitioner is included in the prohibition register. The record does not disclose that the petitioner or his vendor was given notice, before the land was included in the register. The respondents cannot take advantage of the fact that they are the authorities to make entries in the registers and harass innocent citizens. The prohibition operating against the petitioner appears to be in the light of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). A detailed reference is made in the counter affidavit to the categories of prohibitions with reference to different G.Os. as well as the Act. Even assuming that there exists any prohibition, in the original assignment, the first transfer took place much prior to the Act came into force. Further, the Limitation Act itself prescribes 30 years as the period, within which the Government can recover possession, and for corresponding accrual of rights through adverse possession. Viewed from any angle, the stand taken by the respondents in preventing the petitioner from transferring his property cannot be countenanced in law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the 4th respondent is directed to entertain the document, and take appropriate steps, without any reference to the claim made by respondents 1 to 3. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 16.02.2009 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19419 of 2008 Date: 16.02.2009 JSU