APHC010527452022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 32111/2022 Between: 1. P.C.APPARAO,, S/O. DASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. EX-SERVICEMEN, RESIDENT OF D.NO.20-127-8, VENGALRAOPET, VEERABRAHMAMGARI TEMPLE, CHENGALRAOPET, VISAKHAPATNAM (URBAN), VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT) SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MALGALAGIRI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BHEEMUNIPATNAM REVENUE DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 6. THE SUBREGISTRAR, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2 ...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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 3rd respondent issued in Computer No.19636/2017/E1 dated 09.06.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and further direct the respondents to delete the land Sy.No.75 admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of Kothavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District from prohibited list by extending the benefit issued in G.O.Ms..No.279 Revenue (Assn.I) Department dated 04.07.2016 as well as CCLA circular instructions dated 04.05.2022and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents No.3 to5 not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.75 admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of Kothavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District by suspending the order of the 3rd respondent issued in Computer No.19636/2017/E1 dated 09.06.2020, pending disposal of the writ petition.. IA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in W.P.No.32111 of 2022 dated 29-09-2022 in the matter and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner herein/ Respondent No.6 in the Writ Petition No.32111 of 2022 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pas Counsel for the Petitioner: 3 1. O M R LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) 4 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the endorsement of the 3rd respondent dated 19.06.2020 rejecting the request of the petitioner to de-notify the subject land from the prohibited list under Section 22A- (1)(A) in terms of G.O. Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016. 3. The impugned endorsement of the 3rd respondent dated 19.06.2020 deals with the subject land in an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.75 of Kothavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. According to it, the assignment made in favour of the writ petitioner should be treated under normal dharkhast rules as per the provisional assignment order issued in favour of the petitioner mentioned in the G.O.Ms. No.1142 Revenue dated 18.06.1954 and G.O.Ms. No.993/Revenue dated 13.10.1969. As per the condition No.1 of the provisional orders, the said land is only heritable but not alienable. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an ex-service man having served Indian Navy for a period of 17 years. He entered into the service on 29.05.1973 and retired from service in the rank of Chief Petty Officer (Electrical) on 06.11.1989. He further submits that the provisional assignment of the subject land has 5 been made in favour of the petitioner on 28.12.1978 and at the time of field enquiry, it was found that he is in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising the cashew toe and some portion of the land is vacant. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned endorsement of the 3rd respondent dated 19.06.2020 is contrary to the circular issued by the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Mangalagiri dated 04.05.2022. For the case of the petitioner, the serial No.7 in the table mentioned in the said circular is applicable and as such the subject land is entitled to be deleted from 22A list treating it as an ex-serviceman’s land. 5. In W.A. No.271 of 2023 dated 03.10.2023 the Division Bench of this High Court held that G.O.Ms.No.681 includes non-commissioned ranks of all armed services and non-combatants within the scope of G.O.Ms.No. 743 and excludes the officers. Consequently it was held that the assignment of land in favour of the father of the petitioner would have to be treated as an assignment made in favour of an Ex service man. The learned counsel for the petitioner takes shelter under the above said order of the Division Bench of this court and the order passed by another Division Bench of this court in W.A. No.576 of 2022 dated 02.05.2023. 6. He further submits that the 3rd respondent ought to have given the benefit of the proceedings of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in 6 Memo dated 14.03.2024 and his own proceedings dated 18.02.2025 passed in respect of another allottee by name Y.Balireddy to an extent of Ac.5.10 cents in Sy.No.14/1 of Yendada village. He also relies upon the circular of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Mangalagiri dated 04.05.2022 to say that the District Collector is only required to verify if the assignee is truly ex-service man or not and the assignee was genuine or not. Once these two factors are established, the assignee ex-service man shall be allowed to sell the land after ten years from the date of assignment. He also produces the service discharge certificate issued by the concerned department of the petitioner dated 30.11.1989 and the endorsement of the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, dated 20.08.2022. He also produces the endorsement of the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam dated 07.07.2025 and the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 20.07.2023 which shows that the petitioner is an assignee for an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.75-2. 7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions of the 3rd respondent dated 22.07.2025 submits that the petitioner did not participate in the Land Pooling Scheme and did not offer his assigned land for pooling. Consequently, no developed plot was allotted to him under the scheme. Without offering the land under the Land Pooling Scheme, the request of the petitioner to delete the entire extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.75 7 of Kothavalasa Village from 22A list is not tenable. The provisional assignment order was issued to the petitioner duly mentioning the G.O.Ms.No.1142 Revenue dated 18.06.1954. Therefore, the assignment should be treated under normal dharkast rules but not under G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963 (Ex. Service Man assignment guidelines). As per the condition No.1 of the provisional assignment order issued to the petitioner the land assigned shall be heritable but not alienable. Hence, the question of assignment under Ex-service man category does not arise. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the relief to alienate the land after 10 years without any prima-facie assignment procedure followed and without any final allotment of D-Patta to the petitioner. 8. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the material available on record, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to the 3rd respondent enclosing all the necessary documents specifically as mentioned above in support of his claim within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner afresh by conducting necessary enquiry strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner, upon verification of the record and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably 8 within a period of three (3) months thereafter. For the purpose of conducting the above said enquiry, the impugned endorsement of the 3rd respondent dated 19.06.2020 is set aside herewith. However, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the subject land. The above said enquiry before the 3rd respondent and subject to the outcome of the same, the subject land shall be dealt with in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 15.09.2025 NNN