IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.30230 of 2014 Between:
G. Chinnamma, W/o. Late Sivaiah, Aged about 72 years, R/o. Chinnaiahgunta Village, Hamlet of Mangam, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District & another .. Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Stamps & Registration), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.30230 of 2014 ORDER:
Sri G. Sivaiah, husband of the first petitioner, was assigned Ac. 1.13 cents in Survey No.175/2 in Chinnaiahgunta Village, Chandragiri Taluk, bearing DKT No.291/4/1977. He died on 06.01.1990. His son Sri G. Bhasker died on 05.04.2005. The second petitioner is the wife of son of G. Sivaiah. The petitioners claim that the family of the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the land so assigned in the year 1977 and, therefore, they are now perfected the title to the property and are entitled to alienate the property.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of continuous possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 30 years, the petitioners have acquired title to the property and are, thus, entitled to alienate. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in MANDLAPPA @ MANDLA
[1]
GIRIAPPA Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER AND ANR.
and decision of this Court in P. SURESH AND ANOTHER Vs.
A.P. STATE, REP. BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA
[2] AND OTHERS .
3. I n MANDLAPPA’s Case (1 Supra), the issue for consideration was transfer of assigned land by the petitioner, who perfected his title by adverse possession by the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the A.P. Act 9 of 1977’), is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Joint Collector under the A.P. Act 9 of 1977. The father of the petitioner therein purchased the land by registered Sale Deed, dated 13.09.1944, from the original assignee. Alleging that the conditions of D- form patta were violated, the Joint Collector passed an order of eviction against the petitioner on 19.05.1989. Having regard to the fact that the purchase was made from the assignee in the year 1944 and by the time the A.P. Act 9 of 1977 was enacted, the petitioner therein was in possession for over 34 years. The Division Bench of this Court, therefore, held that when once the petitioner is in possession of the land for more than 30 years prior to commencement of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977, the petitioner has perfected his title by adverse possession against the Government. I n P. SURESH’s Case (2 Supra) also, the sale transaction took place much prior to 1954. Subsequently, when one more sale transaction was sought to be carried out concerning the same property, the Tahsildar, Proddutur, sought information from the District Collector that the Survey No.602 belongs to Government and based on the said letter, the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Proddatur, refused either to furnish information or to accept the documents. The fact that from the year 1932 onwards, several transactions have taken place was not disputed and land is recorded as patta. The possession over the land by private persons was admitted. On the said facts, this Court declared that the land in Survey No.602 be treated as patta land and directions were issued to the Joint Sub- Registrar-I, Proddatur, to entertain the Sale Deeds that may be presented by the petitioners.
4. It is not in dispute that assignment was made to the father- in-law of the second petitioner in the year 1977. Assignment patta clearly stipulates bar against alienation of the land. In view of the bar imposed by Section 4(3) of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977, the petitioners cannot seek to alienate the land. Therefore, the action of the registering authority in refusing to permit the petitioners to alienate the land cannot be said as illegal warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 10th October, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.30230 of 2014 Date: 10th October, 2014 KL
[1] 1997 (2) ALD 177 (D.B.)
[2] 2009 (3) ALT 419