IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 4321 OF 2020 / h y Between: Smt. Varalaxmi, W/o. Buthappa, Hindu, Aged Uppidipalh Village, Manuru of Revenue Village, Madakasira Mandal Ananthapur District. about 36 years, R/o. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Tahsildar, Madakasira Mandal, Ananthapur District. 3. C. Kariyanna, S/o. Late Mallesapa, R/o. Maleroppam, H/o. Madakasira Village, Madakasira Mandal, Ananthapur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therevyith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particular by one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the 2"^^ respondent by deciding title of parties as exercised the powers as competent civil and issuing impugned and confirming the sale recommended to issue pattadar pass and conditions of D- dated 09.05.1961 and GOMS No.1142 dated 18.06.1954. Though the 2« respondent held under court beyond the scope of his jurisdiction proceedings R.C.-267/2019(A) dt.12.2019 transactions of D-form patta and book in favour 3rd respondent by violating the terms form patta and also DAR DisNo.647/70 non alienable land and confirmed the sale transactions of 3^^^ respondent and ignoring the petitioner's right title and possession is as illegal, improper and arbitrary consequently setting aside the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.267/2019/ (A) dated -12-2019 and declare the petitioner is the only entitled for pattadar pass books. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 to direct the 2"^^ respondent not to issue pattadar pass books title deed in favour of 3'^^ respondent in respect of Sy. No.269/4 for an extent of Ac.2.51 cents and Sy. No.270/4 an extent of Ac.2.77 cent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. AKELLA PADMA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI P. NARAHARI BABU The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010070592020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 4321/2020 Between: ...PETITIONER Smt. Varalaxmi AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.APADMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2.P NARAHARI BABU The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Ms. A. Padma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents. nd The Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 2 respondent in refusing to grant pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.269/4 in an extent of Ac.2.51 cents and Sy.No.270/4 in an extent of Ac.2.77 cents of Kallumarri Village. 2. f 3. It IS contended that the petitioner’s grandmother was assigned D Form patta in respect of the subject lands vide proceedings dated 11-06-1967, however pattadar pass book was not issued in her favour. The petitioner being the sole surviving legal heir had applied for issuance of pattadar pass books. The 2'"'^ respondent - Tahsildar, rejected her application on the ground that the petitioner’s father, in violation of conditions of assignment had transferred the property in favour of one Malesappa, the father of the unofficial respondent, and one Vaddi Venkanna. Therefore, the same has to be dealt with in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (herein after referred as ‘the Act’). to 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in possession of the subject property. The observation the Tahsildar that the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of pattadar pass books is arbitrary and the same should be set aside. of 5. The learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent would contend that the petitioner’s father himself had sold the property to his predecessors in title, assignment of the subject land was also made in his favour. Without seeking cancellation of the said sale deed and the pattadar pass books issued in connection thereto, the petitioner cannot maintain the present Writ Petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent that without questioning the sale deed executed by the father of the petitioner and the subsequent assignment made in favour of the unofficial 3 respondent the petitioner cannot seek for enforcement of her right. He further contends that he is a Bonafide purchase of the property. Relying on the provisions of Sec.3 (5) of ‘the Act’, contends that he, being a landless poor having purchased the land under a bonafide belief for a valuable consideration, the prohibition contained under the provisions of the Act would not apply to his case, thus, contends that the Tahsildar, has rightly passed the order of rejecting the application of the petitioner. person Considered the rival contentions. 6. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner’s grandmother was assigned land vide D-form Patta in respect of the subject land. She died on 25-12-1990. The claim of the unofficial respondent is that the assignee’s son had sold the land to his father and one, Mr. Vadde Venkatanna, in 1983. The said transaction was during the life time of the assignee. The son of the during the life time of the assignee had no right to alienate the property. The transfer, if any, made in that manner would not bind the petitioner, who claims to be the sole surviving legal heir of the assignee. The vendor of the unofficial respondent cannot pass on a better title than what he had and the unofficial respondent, vendee, cannot possess a better title than his predecessor had possessed. 7. assignee The Tahsildar, while passing the impugned order had taken into consideration irrelevant factors and swayed away by the fact of the assignee’s effecting the transfer in favour of the un-official respondents’ 8. son 4 predecessor’s in title and construed the said transfer, as made in viotation of the conditions of assignment, thus refused to issue pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioner. The Tahsildar had failed to take into consideration the fact, that the transfer made by the assignee’s son, was during the lifetime of the assignee. By which time the assignee’s son had no title over the subject property. The Tahsildar should have ignored the transfer made in favour of the predecessors in title of the unofficial respondents. The observing that the D-patta alleged to have C. Kariyanna, the unofficial respondent Tahsildar, even after been granted in favour of was not traceable in the Office, still refused to grant pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioner. It the case of the Tahsildar that during the lifetime of the is not even assignee, the assignee had effected the transfer in respect of the subject property. If her son makes any alienation, the same cannot be construed a transfer made by the assignee and deprive her legal heirs from claiming their vested right in property. Therefore invoking the provisions of Sec.4 of ‘the as Act’ would not arise. 9. In view of the above the impugned order is set aside, the matter IS remanded back to the Tahsildar, for passing appropriate orders in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act. 1971. 10. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 shall stand As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any closed. Sd/-SHAIK MOHD RAFi ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER SEi To, 1 The Principal Secretary. Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings. Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur Drstnct. Madakasira Mandal, Ananthapur District. 2. TheTahsildar 3. One CC to Smt. Akella Padma, Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to Sri P. Narahari Babu, Advocate[OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, 6. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:04/02/2025 ORDER * 2 1 MAR 2025 r ^ . Current Section . ^ ^^s£?SpaTCH^i<^ WP.No.4321 of 2020 Co. ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS