Writ Petition No. 5809 of 2017. Case: D. Ramesh and Ors. Vs State of A.P. and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 5809 of 2017 |
| Judges | A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J. |
| Issue | Property Law |
| Judgement Date | March 21, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.
-
The case of the petitioners is that originally the land admeasuring Ac.3.07 cents in Sy. No. 8/1 of Bandameedakamma Palli Village, Madanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District was assigned in favour of one Palagiri Indrasena Raju under Ex-Servicemen quota through assignment in D-Form patta, dated 14.08.1984 and his name was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deed were granted. As per G.O. Ms. No. 1117, Revenue (ASSGN-I) Department, dated 11.11.1993, G.O. Ms. No. 279 dated 04.07.2016, the Ex-servicemen are entitled to alienate the land assigned to them after the lapse of 10 years from the date of assignment and the said land should be deleted from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Petitioners have purchased the subject land from Palagiri Indrasena Raju through sale deed dated 03.08.2016. Thereafter, with an intention to sell the to the 3rd parties, the petitioners approached the 5th respondent for submission of documents for registration, but the 5th respondent refused to entertain the same on the ground that the subject land is an assigned land and is included in the list of prohibited properties sent by the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
-
Counter affidavit is filed by the 5th respondent stating that the subject land is an assigned land and basing on the entries of the revenue records, a list of Government lands has been communicated the Registration Department vide proceedings dated 18.07.2016. As per the Full Bench Judgment in W.A. No. 343/2015, dated 23.12.2015, once the notification is issued by the authority, the aggrieved party has to approach the concerned authority for deletion of the lands included in the list of prohibited properties, as such the petitioners have to approach the concerned authority.
-
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the list is sent by the 4th respondent, who is not competent authority to do so. He also submits that when petitioners applied for copy of the list issued under Section 22-A of the Act, the same was issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar-Madanapalle, which is signed by the Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer. He further submits that the list enclosed along with the counter affidavit also goes to show that the same is signed by VRO and MRO but not by the District Collector, who is competent authority for...
To continue reading
Request your trial