HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21340 of 2013 Date: 11.6.2014 Between :
B.Narendra S/o B Ramachandra Rao Plot No. 159 Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and others … Petitioners and The District Registrar, Stamps and Registration, Visakhapatnam dist & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21340 of 2013 ORDER:
Case of the petitioners is that vendors of petitioners Sri C.V.Nageswara Sastry and Sri C.N.V.Dekshinamurthy Sastri were granted rythwari pattas on 30.5.1968. Sri C.V.Nageswara Sastry was granted rythwari patta on the land to an extent of land Ac.1.69 cents in Survey No. 160 and Sri C.N.V.Dekshanamurthy Sastri was granted rythwari patta on the land to an extent of Ac.0.80 cents in Survey No. 178/2, Ac.2.00 cents in survey No. 179/1 and Ac.2.02 cents in Survey No. 179/2, Aganampudi village, Anakapalli mandal, Visakapatnam district.
Since Sri C.V.Nageswara Sastry was in possession of excess land than what is prescribed by the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and in the year 1979 he surrendered land to an extent of Ac.1.34 cents in Survey No. 160. Thus, after surrender of excess land in Survey No. 160, land to an extent of Ac.0.35 cents left in his possession. Thus, remaining extent of land in other Survey Numbers and land to an extent of Ac.0.35 cents in survey No. 160 was in possession and enjoyment of Sri C.V.Nageswara Sastry and Sri C.N.V.Dekshinamurthy Sastri.
2. Petitioners entered into agreement with vendors to purchase land in the above survey numbers in the year 2004. Petitioners obtained lay out permission from Visakapatnam Urban Development Authority and at the stage of disposal of the plots in the said lay out, petitioners received objections from the respondent authorities holding that the lands in survey Nos. 160/2, 178/2, 179/1 and 179/2, Aganampudi village are classified as Government lands and are included in the list of prohibited properties circulated to the registration department. Petitioners have obtained the list of prohibited properties and on scrutiny they have noticed that the entire extent of land in survey No. 160 was shown as land surrendered under the Land Ceiling Act, whereas actual land surrendered by the vendor of the petitioners was only an extent of Ac.1.34 cents out of total extent of Ac.1.69 cents. Land in survey Nos. 178/2, 179/1 and 179/2 are described as ‘D-patta’ but rythwari pattas were granted over the said land in the year 1968. Rythwari patta document is filed as material paper along with the writ petition at page 14.
3. On 30.8.2007 notice was issued to the vendor of the petitioners holding that the lands in the above survey numbers are assigned lands and transfer by way of sale was illegal and therefore explanation was called as to why the assignment should not be cancelled and land be resumed. A detailed explanation is filed by the original land owners explaining how title was accrued to them.
4. On detailed consideration of the matter, Tahsildar, Gajuwaka noticed that earlier decision to include the lands in the prohibited list was erroneous and it was not a case of granting ‘D-patta’ but rythwari pattas were granted to the vendors of the petitioners and the description of the land as ‘vagu’ insofar as Survey No. 179/2 is concerned, is not correct. Therefore, the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka submitted a report vide proceedings RC No. 929/2011/SA dated 20.9.2011 recommending the District Collector to delete land to an extent of Ac.0.35 cents in Survey No. 160/2, Ac. 0.80 cents in survey No. 178/2, Ac.2.00 cents in survey No. 179/1 and Ac.2.02 cents in survey No. 179/2 belonging to the vendors of the petitioners from the list of Government lands.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that no further orders are passed by the District Collector and on account of the description of the above lands as Government lands in the list of properties furnished to the Sub Registrar, the deeds of conveyance are not received by the Sub Registrar and for no fault, petitioners are made to suffer. It is further submitted that illegalities were committed by the revenue authorities in wrongly describing the status of the land as ‘D-patta and Vagu Poramboke’, whereas they are patta lands granted validly in favour of the vendors of the petitioners.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer- third respondent, the status of the land in Survey Nos. 160, 178/2 and 179/1 is shown as ‘Gayalu’ and Survey No. 179/2 is shown as ‘Vagu Poramboke’. Counter affidavit also refers to the proposals sent by the Tahsildar and the notice issued by the Tahsildar for resumption of the land. Obviously, there was total non application of mind in drafting the counter. The counter ignores the fact that notice was issued by the Tahsildar much prior to the report sent by him. In pursuance of the notice, the parties have responded and placed the relevant material before the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar considered the relevant material and submitted a report to the District Collector informing that there was mistake in including the land in the above survey numbers in the list of prohibited properties and same should be deleted. Ignoring the said recommendations and referring to an earlier show cause notice, he deposed in the counter as if issue of conducting enquiry pursuant to show cause notice under Act No. 9 of 1977 is still pending. It appears that a memo was also issued to the Tahsildar on 13.6.2012 to take appropriate action as per the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. All this would show total non application of mind.
7. It appears that lands in survey Nos. 160, 178/2, 179/1 and 179/2 have been given to the vendors of the petitioners as rythwari pattas. Though subsequently, a wrong classification was shown but on enquiry the Tahsildar found that it was a mistake and recommended to the District Collector that the classification was wrongly done and therefore, lands should be deleted from the list of prohibited properties.
8. Having regard to the submissions made, the writ petition is disposed of directing the District Collector to consider the report submitted by the Tahsildar vide proceedings in RC No. 929/2011/SA dated 20.9.2011 and pass appropriate orders as warranted by law for deletion of the list of properties mentioned therein from list of prohibited properties and communicate the decision to the registration department. If the District Collector is of the opinion based on material on record that the recommendations earlier made by the Tahsildar are not valid, the said material should be communicated to petitioners and they be given opportunity of hearing before passing appropriate orders as warranted by law. The District Collector shall complete the exercise within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sequel to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any stand dismissed.
P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE:11.6.2014 TVK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21340 of 2013 Date: 11.6.2014