1 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.837 of 2025 APHC010321082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL No:837 of 2025 Between: The State Of AP and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Medapati Satyanarayana Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS Court made the following Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard the learned G.P. for Assignment appearing for the appellants, Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and learned G.P. for Registration and Stamps appearing for the 2nd respondent. 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.837 of 2025 2. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale cum power of attorney with one Sangamreddy Ravi Prasad, in relation to Ac.5.31 cents in Sy.No.33/5 of Vanka Somida Village, Mentada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Thereafter, he sought to alienate the land and approached the Sub-Registrar for obtaining necessary information. At that stage, the 1st respondent was informed by the Sub-Registrar of Gajapathinagaram, Vizianagaram District, that the land in question, had been included in the prohibitory register maintained under Section 22(A)(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908. Having come to know of the inclusion, the 1st respondent had approached the District Collector, for deletion of the land from the prohibitory list, by way of an application, dated 26.08.2019. The District Collector appears to have forwarded the application to the Tahsildar, Mentada. After conducting an enquiry, the Tahsildar Mentada issued an endorsement, dated 21.09.2019 calling upon the 1st respondent to submit certain documents without which no further steps would be taken. The said documents were – 1. Xerox copy of No objection certificate (N.O.C.) issued by District Collector, Vizianagaram or Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram. 2. Copy of orders issued by District Collector, Vizianagaram or Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram removing the lands from 22-A register. 3. Details with regard to grant of D. Form patta in favour of Sangamreddy Appalaswamy under ex-serviceman quota in respect of land in 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.837 of 2025 Sy.No.33-5 admeasuring Ac.5.31 cents or details of his retirement, whether the said person was granted D-form patta while in service or after retirement. 3. The 1st respondent, being aggrieved by this endorsement and the inaction of the District Collector in removing the lands from the prohibitory list, had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.6093 of 2020. 4. The case of the 1st respondent before the learned Single Judge was that this land had been assigned to one Sangamreddy Appalaswamy, who was an ex-serviceman in the year 1972. After the death of Sri Sangamreddy Appalaswamy, his wife had sought to sell the land and approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.20005 of 2009, for a direction to the revenue authorities to permit her to sell the land. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by an interim order, dated 18.09.2009, in W.P.M.P.No.26083 of 2009, had directed the revenue authorities to consider the request of the wife of the ex-serviceman. 5. On the basis of this direction, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, issued proceedings in L.Dis.No.1504/2009.A, dated 15.09.2009 to the Sub-Registrar, Gajapathinagaram, to permit the wife of the ex-serviceman to sell the aforesaid Ac.5.31 cents of land on the ground that ex-servicemen are free to sell away the lands assigned to them, after a period of 10 years, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1117 Revenue (ASSnI) Department, dated 11.11.1993. 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.837 of 2025 6. The son of the ex-serviceman, had thereupon, entered into an agreement of sale cum power of attorney with the 1st respondent herein, as mentioned above. The 1st respondent herein contended that in view of these earlier proceedings, the land admeasuring Ac.5.31 cents in Sy.No.33/5 could not have been placed in the prohibitory list and would have to be released. 7. The learned Government Pleader had contended that the appropriate course of action for the 1st respondent would be to seek relief in accordance with the directions of the Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, in W.A.No.343 of 2015 and batch. 8. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions and relying upon Clauses 12 and 17 of the Circular Memo, dated 04.05.2022, had set aside the endorsement of the Tahsildar, which was impugned in the writ petition, by order dated 31.12.2024, and directed the 2nd respondent- District Collector to pass appropriate orders deleting the subject land from the prohibitory list of properties maintained under Section 22(A)(1)(a) of the Registration Act, in terms of the Circular Memo, dated 04.05.2022. 9. Aggrieved by this judgment, dated 31.12.2024, of the learned Single Judge, the State has approached this Court by way of the present writ appeal. 10. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that there is no material available in the office of the Tahsildar or the Revenue 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.837 of 2025 Divisional Officer to show that any land had, in fact, been assigned to late Sri Sangamreddy Appalaswamy. He would further contend that description of rank of Sri Sangam Appalaswamy as ex-warrant officer itself goes to show that there is any amount of suspicion regarding the assignment. Learned Government Pleader would contend that the rank of warrant officer is available only in the air force and such a rank is not available in the Army. The learned Government Pleader would rely upon G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963 and G.O.Ms.No.681 dated 18.04.1964 to contend that late Sri Sangamreddy Appalaswamy, who is described as non-commissioned officer, is not a “Jawan”, who would be entitled to assignment of land. 11. In view of these submissions, this Court had directed production of the file being maintained by the revenue authorities and the said file had been placed before us. 12. Section 2 of the Army Act, 1950, extends the ambit of this Act to Soldiers of various ranks, including warrant officers. This contention of the learned Government, in this regard, has to be rejected. 13. G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1963 had been issued for setting out the method and manner in which land could be assigned to ex-servicemen. This G.O. stipulated that the land would be assigned to “Jawans”. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.681 dated 18.04.1964 extended the scope of the term “Jawan” to include non-commissioned ranks of all the three armed services and also non-combatants, but should exclude 6 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.837 of 2025 officers. The rank of warrant officer or otherwise would only be that of non- commissioned officers who would not fall within the term “Officers” as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.681 dated 18.04.1964. Consequently this contention has to be rejected. 14. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that no record is available with the revenue authorities regarding the assignment of land to late Sri Sangamreddy Appalaswamy, and consequently, the burden is on the petitioner in the writ petition to produce necessary proof of assignment etc. A perusal of the record placed before us shows that the wife of late Sri Sangamreddy Appalaswamy had sought permission to sell the very same land and the Revenue Divisional Officer had issued proceedings way-back in 2009, accepting the fact that the land had been assigned to an ex-serviceman and that the ex-servicemen are entitled to sell away the land after holding the same for 10 years. Thereafter, no steps of any nature were taken by the revenue authorities to either ascertain the facts or to raise any doubts as to the factum of assignment of land to Late Sri Sangamreddy Appalaswamy. 15. In view of the silence and acquiescence of the revenue department, it would be highly unfair to call upon the petitioner to produce the documents of assignment etc. Further, the documents, if any, would be with the original assignee and calling upon the petitioner, in the writ petition, to produce these documents would be an unreasonable and arbitrary action. 7 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.837 of 2025 16. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any reason to interfere with the direction of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ____________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J Js. 8 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.837 of 2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL No:837 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 11th August, 2025 Js