APHC010475762022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 28882 OF 2022 Between: K Sridhar, S/o. K. Muniratnam Naidu, Aged about 49 years, R/o. D.No.6/181 Dhana Lakshmi Nagar, Avilala Post, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, A.P. Secretarait, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith pleased to issue the High Court may be a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders in Rc.E3/889/2022 Dated 06-07-2022 by the respondent No 2 in rejecting the application made by the petitioner to delete the schedule property situated in S.No 377/1, 377/3, 377/4, 377/5, of an extents of Ac 1.27 Cents Ac 0.86 Cents, Ac 1.61 Cents and Ad.44 Cents respectively of Kanchanaputturu Mandal from prohibited Village, Buchinaidu Kandriga properties maintained under Section 22A of A P Registration Act 1908 and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary. unconstitutional and being violative of Articles constitution of India and to RC.E3/889/2022 Dated 06-07-2022 14, 21 and 300(A) of the set aside the impugned proceedings in passed by the respondent No. 2 consequently suspend the impugned orders in Rc.E3/889/2022 Dated 06-07-2022 by the respondent No. 2 by directing to delete the schedule property situated in S.No 377/1 , 377/3 377/4 377/5 of an extents of Ac 1.27 Cents Ac 0.86 Cents, Ac 1.61 Cents and Ac1.44 Cents Kandriga Mandal from properties maintained under Sec 22A of A.P. Registration Act respectively of prohibitory Kanchanaputturu Village, Buchinaidu , 1908. lA NO: 1 OF 7n99 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the impugned orders in Rc.E3/889/2022 Dated 06-07-2022 by the respondent No. 2 by directing to delete the schedule property situated in S No 377/1 , 377/3 377/4 377/5 of praying that in the circumstances stated to an extents of Ac 1.27 Cents, Ac 0.86 Cents, Ac respectively of Kanchanaputturu Village, prohibitory properties maintained under 1.61 Cents and Ac 1.44 Cents Buchinaidu Kandriga Mandal from Sec 22A of A.P.Registration Act, 1908. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P JAGADISH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: CHANDRA PRASAD 1 V* APHC010475762022 f IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 28882/2022 Between: 1.K SRIDHAR, S/O. K. MUNIRATNAM NAiDU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.6/181, DHANA LAKSHMI NAGAR, AVILALA POST, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, A.P. SECRETARAIT, AMARAVATHI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT . ...RESPONDENT(S); Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders in Rc.E3/889/2022 Dated 06-07- 2022 by the respondent No. 2 in rejecting the application made by the petitioner to delete the schedule property situated in S.No 377/1, 2 377/3, 377/4, 377/5, of an extents of Ac 121 Cents , Ac 0.86 Cents, Ac 1.61 Cents and Ac1.44 Cents respectively of Kanchanaputturu Village , Buchinaidu Kandriga Mandal from prohibited properties maintained under Section 22A of A.P Registration Act 1908 and to declare the same as illegal , arbitrary , unconstitutional and being violative of articles 14, 21 and 300(A) of the constitution of India and and to set aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.E3/889/2022 Dated 06-07-2022 passed by the respondent No. 2 consequently suspend the impugned orders in Rc.E3/889/2022 Dated 06-07-2022 by the respondent No. 2 by directing to delete the schedule property situated in S.No 377/1 , 377/3 377/4 377/5 of an extents of Ac 1.27 Cents Ac 0.86 Cents, Ac 1.61 Cents and Ac1.44 Cents respectively of Kanchanaputturu Village, Buchinaidu Kandriga Mandal from prohibitory properties maintained under Sec 22A of A.P. Registration Act, 1908 and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2022 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased TO suspend the impugned orders in FRC.E3/889/2022 Dated 06-07-2022 by 1. the respondent No. 2 by directing to delete the schedule property situated in S.No 377/1 , 377/3 377/4 377/5 of an extents of Ac 1.27 Cents , Ac 0.86 Cents, Ac 1.61 Cents and Ac1.44 Cents respectively of Kanchanaputturu Village , Buchinaidu Kandriga Mandal from prohibitory properties maintained under Sec 22A of A.P.Registration Act , 1908 and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner herein/ Respondent No.2 in W.P.No. 28882 of 2022 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 3 1.P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 4 J HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP No.28882 OF 2022 ORDER:- 1. It is the case of the petitioner that one Sri K.C.Naga Raju, S/o. K.Chinna Swamy, an ex-serviceman was assigned land admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.18 cents in Sy.No.3771/1, 377/3 to 377/5 of Kanchanaputturu Village, Buchinaidu Kandriga Mandal, Chittoor Distridt by proceedings in DKT Patta No.381/4/1405, dated 30.06.1996 in recognition of the services rendered by him to the country. 2. It is further case of the petitioner that since the date of assignment the said individual was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Further the name of Sri K.C.Naga Raju was mutated in revenue records and he was issued pattadar pass books vide khata No.368. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that the said Sri K.C. Naga Raju alienated the said land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 02.06.2011 vide document No. 1036 of 2011 in favour of Sri Vattikota Sudhakar Naidu after completion of period of ten (10) years as per G.O.Ms.No.l 117, Revenue Department (assigned 5 land), dated 11.11.1993. Subsequently the purchaser Sri Vattikota Sudhakar Naidu got his name mutated in revenue records and he was also obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds vide khata No. 1176, since then he enjoy the said land as a absolute owner and possessor. It is further stated in the affidavit that Sri Vattikota 4. Sudhakar Naidu alienated the property in favour of the petitioner through register sale deed dated 30.03.2015 vide document No.596 of 2015. It is claimed by the petitioner since the date of purchase he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is further stated that he raised Mango tope in the said 5. land. Further his name is also mutated in revenue records and the authorities concerned issued E-pattadar pass books in his favour vide khata No.1512 in respect of the subject land. 6. It is further case of the petitioner that in the year 2019 he came to know that the said property was included in the list of prohibited properties furnished under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908. Having come to know about the same, the petitioner approached the Tahsildar concerned by making application under Right Information Act, 2005 seeking to furnish certified copy of D- Form patta, dated 30.06.1996 issued in favour of Ex-serviceman Sri K.C.Naga Raju. To which the Tahsildar stated that the information sought for by the petitioner is not available in the office, but he did not give any reply or endorsement to that effect. Thereafter the petitioner made representation before 2"'^ respondent seeking delete the subject land from the prohibited properties list. Upon which the 2"^^ respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner by endorsement dated 24.10.2019. Questioning the said endorsement the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.3893 of 2021 before this to Court and the said writ petition was allowed by order dated where under the impugned endorsement dated 24.10.2019 there in was set aside and the matter 19.02.2021 was remanded back to the 2"^^ respondent for fresh consideration of the claim of the petitioner for deletion of subject land from the prohibited property list, after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, duly taking into consideration of G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016 i accordance with law. in 7. In view of the order passed by this Court, a notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to appear before the 2 respondent with all documents in support of his claim. In thereof the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation. It is specially nd pursuance 7 N- requested in the said explanation to afford opportunity of being heard and despite the same, the 2^^ respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 06.07.2022 whereunder rejected the claim of the petitioner. Questioning the same the present writ petition is filed. On the other hand, the 2"'^ respondent filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that as verified from the village records of Kanchanaputtar Village of Buchinaidu Kandriga Mandal the land in Sy.No.377 was carved out from the from the block Sy.No.192 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.226.26 cents, which is classified as 8. Gayulu (Unassessed Waste). It is further stated that as verified from the DKT register for the Fasli 1405 pertaining to the order 1995 from the DKT register No.378/4/1405, dated 30.06.1996, no assignment was made in favour of Sri K.C. Naga Raju under Ex-servicemen category in respect of subject lands, as such the patta claimed by the petitioner is non-existing one and not emanated from the official records. 9. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as per 10(1) account, one Smt.Peddi Adilakshmamma, W/o. Krishnaiah 10. was noted as pattadar to an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No.383-4 patta vide DKT No.271/4/1404, dated 22.08.1994 and later the said 8 entry was rounded off and the name of Sri K.C.Naga Raju entered to an extent of Ac.5.18 cents vide DKT No.381/4/1405, was dated 30.06.1996. 11. It is further stated that the entry made in favour of Sri K.C.Naga Raju was irregular inasmuch as, there is no entry showing that the said individual was assigned the subject land under Ex- servicemen quota in the DKT Register. It is further contended that the subsequent transactions are not valid and the same do not confer title on the purchaser. The counter affidavit further reads that as per G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1963, all the applications shall be rooted through the Secretary, State Soliders, Sailors and Airmen’s Board and the applications should be certified by the Officer Commanding the Regiment in which the jawans serve. The Secretary, State Soliders, Sailors and Airmen’s Board may send the applications directly to the Collector to which the person applies for the land as ex-solider. With the above pleadings, the .respondents pray to dismiss the writ petition. 12. The petitioner filed reply affidavit stating that the name of original assignee Sri K.C.Naga Raju mutated in revenue records and subsequently he alienated the property in favour of the petitioner vendor by virtue of register sale deed dated 02.06.2011 9 X and their names were also entered into revenue records and issued pattadar pass books in their favour. 13. Further it is stated that the name of the petitioner was also entered into in revenue records and other documents pertaining to the service record of the original assignee that, he worked in the rank of GNR (HAV), which service No.14325337 also filed. It is further stated that all the documents were clearly reflect that the subject land was initially assigned in favour of Sri K.C.Naga Raju under Ex-servicemen quota. 14. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 15. Perused material available on record. On perusal of the documents filed along with the writ petition, it is clear that originally the said land was assigned in favour of Sri K.C.Naga Raju under Ex-servicemen quota vide DKTA 16. Patta No.381/4/1405, dated 30.06.1996. To substantiate the claim of the petitioner, copy of the DKT patta is filed along with the present writ petition. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the issuance of the said patta, the name of the Sri K.C.Naga Raju and later the name of petitioner’s vendor and the petitioner’s were 10 mutated in revenue records by issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour. On perusal of impugned order dated 06.07.2022, it is clear that the said order was passed solely relying on the reports submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi. The explanation offered by the petitioner including the material filed in respect of his claim was not at all considered. It is also not in dispute that though the assignment was made in the year 1996, till the petitioner approached the 2"^^ respondent seeking to delete the subject land from the list of prohibited properties, admittedly action was initiated either against the original assignee Sri K.C.Naga Raju or against the petitioner’s vendor against the petitioner. In the absence of any action against them, the 2 respondent is precluded to contend that, no assignment was made in favour of Sri K.C.Naga Raju. 17. no nd Further the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there is no entry in DKT register maintained by the concerned Tahsildar. Further the 2'^'^ respondent completely ignored the factum of issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioner and his vendor. On a close perusal of ■’ counter affidavit filed in the present writ petition, it is clear that the 18. 11 respondent did not deny the issuance of DKT patta in favour of Sri K.C.Naga Raju. Further, by stating that the DKT register does not contain the entry showing that DKT patta was issued in favour of original assignee Sri K.C.Naga Raju, the respondents did not put forth anything to substantiate the same. Merely because the DKT patta register does not contain entry, the same cannot be put against the petitioner. Further making entry in the DKT register is exclusively within the domain of the concerned Tahsildar and it is only a Ministerial act. The counsel for petitioner places reliance on Judgment in the case of ‘Ande Narasimha Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others”^ in support of his contention, in the said Judgment this Court held as under; “6. In my opinion, missing of the file cannot be allowed to work to the disadvantage of the petitioner. Once, the petitioner’s status as ex-serviceman was recognized in the DKT patta, the condition incorporated in G.O.Ms.No.743, dated 30.04.1963, as modified in G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993, ensures to his benefit.” 19. Therefore in the absence of denial of issuance of DKT patta, the respondents cannot reject the claim of the petitioner. Further yet another ground on which the case of the petitioner was rejected that while granting patta in favour of Sri K.C.Naga Raju, the guidelines enunciated under G.O.Ms.No.743, dated 30.04.1963 2013(2) AID 702 12 were not followed and therefore the assignment made in favour of the original assignee cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that the original assignee was in Military service and once the land is assigned to the petitioner Ex-servicemen quota, the respondents cannot turn around and say that the application was not routed through proper channel. Further, even otherwise, the original assignee is entitled for grant of D-form patta as an Ex-serviceman. Further as already stated supra, much water has flown in the matter and the subject land changed many hands. In view of the same. more particularly at this distinction of time, the respondents are precluded to deny the assignment made in favour of the original assignee. 20. The said finding of the 2 respondent cannot be countenanced as it runs contrary to report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. On the one hand, the impugned order says that there is no entry in the DKT register showing the name of original assignee Sri K.C.Naga Raju. On the contrary the impugned order says that the DKT patta issued is contrary to guidelines enunciated under G.O.Ms.No.743. 21. From the above, it is clear that the respondents are blowing hot and cold in the matter, so as to reject the claim of the 13 petitioner. As already stated supra, the 2""^^ respondent did not initiate any action either against the original assignee or against the petitioner’s vendor or the petitioner till an application is made to delete the subject land from the list of prohibited properties. In the absence of initiating of any action, the respondents cannot be permitted to reject the case of the petitioner. From the above, it is clear that by no stretch of imagination the subject land can be treated as government land, as long as the patta granted in favour of the original assignee is denied. 22. Further as per G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993, Ex- servicemen are entitled to alienate the property assigned in their favour after completion of period of ten (10) years from the date of assignment. Admittedly in the case on hand, the original assignee alienated the property after completion of 10 years in favour of the petitioner’s vendor subsequently his name was also entered in the revenue records. 23. In view of reasons stated supra, the impugned endorsement does not stand for judicial scrutiny and accordingly the same is set aside. It is further directed that, the 2'"'^ respondent shall delete the subject land to an extent of Ac.5.18 cents in Sy.No.3771/1 377/3 to 377/5 of Kanchanaputturu Village 14 Buchinaidu Kandriga Mandal, Chittoor District from the prohibited properties list issued under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908, forthwith. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand dosed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District. 3. One CC to Sri P Jagadish Chandra Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 4. TwoCCsto GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 5. Two CD Copies A.P. Secretarait, [OUT] TF ■> HIGH COURT DATED;14/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 28882 OF 2022 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS