APHC010597282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3535] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1193/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed in WP.No.32111/2022 dated 15.09.2025 and consequently direct the respondents to delete the subject land from Section 22A list and grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 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 ...APPELLANT 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. 2 RRR,J & BVLNC,J W.A.No.1193 of 2025 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 SUB REGISTRAR, BHEEMUNIPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NARASIMHA REDDY. G . L Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS 3 RRR,J & BVLNC,J W.A.No.1193 of 2025 The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The appellant before this Court, had retired from the Indian Navy as Chief Petty Officer (Electrical), on 06.11.1989. He was assigned Ac.5.10 cents of land, in Sy.No.75-2 of Kothavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, on 20.12.1978. 2. The appellant, was informed that this land has been placed, in the Prohibitory List, maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and had sought de-notification of this land from the said Prohibitory List. This request of the appellant, had been rejected by the 3rd Respondent, by an Endorsement, dated 19.06.2020. 3. Aggrieved by this Endorsement, the appellant has approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.32111 of 2022. 4. The contention of the appellant is that, the land was assigned to him, under the Ex-Servicemen Quota and as such, the appellant was entitled to sell the land, after the lapse of 10 (ten) years from the date of assignment and consequently, the land could not have been treated as assigned land, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and there was no need to keep the land in the Prohibitory List. 5. The 3rd Respondent, in his Endorsement, dated 19.06.2020, had held that, the land had been assigned to the appellant and that, the appellant was growing 4 RRR,J & BVLNC,J W.A.No.1193 of 2025 a cashew nut crop in the said land. However, the appellant was not entitled to the said land in as much as he retired as a Junior Commissioned Officer and such Officers are not entitled for assignment of agricultural lands in view of G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963. Apart from this, the provisional assignment order, given in favour of the appellant, mentioned G.O.Ms.No.1142, Revenue Department, dated 18.06.1954 and G.O.Ms.No.993/Rev, dated 13.10.1969 and consequently, the assignment should be treated as an assignment under the normal Darkasth Rules, which would make the land heritable but not alienable. The further ground taken was that, the assignment was done, while the appellant was still in service and accordingly, the said assignment was irregular. 6. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an Order, dated 15.09.2025, had disposed of the said Writ Petition, duly noting the above objections of the respondents and with a direction to the appellant to make a fresh Representation to the 3rd respondent, enclosing all the necessary documents, within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of the learned Single Judge’s Order and with a further direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the Representation of the appellant afresh by conducting an enquiry, if necessary, within three (3) months thereafter. The learned Single Judge, for the purpose of conducting such enquiry, has also set aside the impugned Endorsement of the District Collector - 3rd respondent, dated 19.06.2020. This direction of the learned 5 RRR,J & BVLNC,J W.A.No.1193 of 2025 Single Judge was given, in view of the further contention that only a provisional patta was given and no final patta has been given. 7. Aggrieved by this Order, the appellant has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. 8. Sri Narasimha Reddy G. L., the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that, the land assigned to a Junior Commissioned Officer even while in service, would have to be treated only as an assignment of land to an Ex-Servicemen, who would be entitled to alienate the said land, after lapse of 10 (ten) years from the date of the assignment. He would further contend that, the land would not fall under the definition of “Assignment Land” as defined under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. 9. In such circumstances, the land cannot be kept in the Prohibitory List maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. He would also submit that, the learned Single Judge, having taken all these facts into consideration, could not have directed a further enquiry in the matter. 10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing in the matter, would submit that, apart from the Endorsement made, by the District Collector – 3rd respondent, there is a further fact of the land being described as a Sand Dunes Poramboke, in the Revenue Records and as such, the land could 6 RRR,J & BVLNC,J W.A.No.1193 of 2025 not have been assigned at all. The counter-affidavit filed, in the Writ Petition, would also state that, the owners of the land in survey number, had handed over the land for land pooling by M/s.V.M.R.D.A., where as the appellant had not handed over the said land. 11. There is no dispute that the appellant had been assigned this land, by way of a provisional order, while he was in service and he had retired as Chief Petty Officer, which is a Junior Commissioned Officer’s Rank. Neither the Board Standing Orders nor any G.O., providing for assignment of land to Ex-Servicemen, prohibits assignment of land to serving members of the Armed Forces. This issue has been considered in various Judgments of this Court, including a Judgment, dated 03.10.2023, in W.A.No.271 of 2023, where this Court, had held that, the land can be assigned to persons still in service. 12. The question of whether a Junior Commissioned Officer would be entitled to assignment of land, under the Ex-Serviceman category, had also been considered in the very same Judgment, in W.A.No.271 of 2023 and this Court, had held that, Junior Commissioned Officers are entitled for assignment of land, under the Ex-Servicemen category. Following the said Judgment, it must be held that, these two objections raised by the respondents, have to be rejected. 13. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would also contend that, the land in Sy.No.75, has been classified as Sand Dunes Poramboke and could not 7 RRR,J & BVLNC,J W.A.No.1193 of 2025 have been assigned. However, there is no explanation as to how other persons who were assigned land, in this survey number, could have handed over their lands for land pooling to M/s.V.M.R.D.A. and as to how they were allotted plots, on the basis of such a land pooling scheme. In the face of these steps taken by the respondents, the contention that the land could not have been assigned to the appellant, would have to be rejected. Apart from this, it is not clear as to how lands in Sand Dunes Poramboke cannot be assigned to the appellant or any other person. 14. The only issue remaining is whether the provisional assignment of land, would suffice for the appellant to make a claim over the land. The appellant relies upon a Memo.No.3561/ Assn.I(2) / 2009-4, dated 03.03.2010, issued by the Secretary, Revenue, Government of A.P., where a person assigned land, under a provisional assignment order, under the Ex-Servicemen Quota, had been permitted to sell away the land. The Government, while issuing this Memorandum, had observed that, once the land had been utilized for cultivation from the date of the provisional assignment, the issue of D-Form Patta is only a formality and the delay in issuance of D-Form Patta, cannot deprive the benefit of the assignment given to the Ex-Servicemen. On that basis, the said Ex-Serviceman, was permitted to sell the land. The same facts arise in the present case, as the appellant has been cultivating this land for more than 40 years. 8 RRR,J & BVLNC,J W.A.No.1193 of 2025 15. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any purpose in conduct of fresh proceedings to determine as to whether the land should be removed from the Prohibitory List, maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. 16. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed, modifying the Order of the learned Single Judge to the extent of directing the District Collector – 3rd Respondent, to remove the aforesaid land from the Prohibitory List and to issue necessary No Objection Certificate to the appellant within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. In the event of failure to remove the land from the Prohibitory List or to issue such a No Objection Certificate, it would be open to the appellant to present any document of alienation to the Sub-Registrar, who shall thereupon consider and register such document, subject to all the other requirements being complied, without going into the question of whether this land is included in the Prohibitory List, maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J __________________________ B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J Date:17.11.2025 KPV/KS 9 RRR,J & BVLNC,J W.A.No.1193 of 2025 100 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT APPEAL No:1193 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 17.11.2025 KPV