HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.4824 of 2014 Date: 24.11.2014 Between :
G.Malla Reddy, s/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occu: Agrl., R/o. Poodur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
….. Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep.by its Prl. Secretary to Government, Revenue (Registration) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and others.
.... Respondents This Court made the following:-
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.4824 of 2014 ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that Ac.5.00 cents of land in Sy.No.621/3 of the Dabirpura (Dabilpur) village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was assigned to Mr. N.Peter as an Ex-serviceman. Mr.N.Peter retired from Indian Air Force in December, 1966. It appears that he was granted land under the proceedings of the Tahsildar Medchal in File No.C2/1676/1966, dated 03.10.1966, by which time the petitioner was serving in Indian Air Force. No reasons are found on record as to why such assignment was granted. Be that as it may, as evident from the counter- affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, assignment granted to Mr. Peter on 03.10.1966 is not cancelled and subsisting till date. Petitioner purchased the said property on 21.09.1995.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property ever since he purchased. Till he purchased the said property, it was in possession and enjoyment of Mr. N.Peter. When the petitioner sought to present the deed of conveyance, the Sub-Registrar insisted for obtaining No Objection Certificate. Aggrieved by insistence of No Objection Certificate, this writ petition is instituted.
3. Once the land is assigned to an Ex-servicemen, according to the Government policy, the Ex-serviceman is entitled to dispose of the land after period of ten years provided he was in possession and enjoyment of the land till the date of completion of ten years. In the instant case, the property was sold after ten years. Therefore, the condition of completion of minimum of ten years as containing in G.O.Ms.No.117, Revenue (Assignments-I) Department, dated 11.11.1993 is fulfilled in this case when it was sold. Thus, the title was validly passed on to the petitioner when he purchased. Since the petitioner has purchased the land on 21.09.1995 and is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same and when it was sold, the Ex-serviceman was entitled to sell, it cannot be said that title is not validly passed on to the petitioner.
4. Earlier, some people complained against the assignment of lands in Sy.No.621 alleging that they were in possession and enjoyment of the said properties and without putting them on notice, illegal assignment was made. It is also further contended by them that Mr. N.Peter entered into an agreement of sale, received sale consideration and handed over the possession and, therefore, the question of Mr. N.Peter entering into further sale with another person is illegal. On consideration of the said complaint, Mr. N.Peter and 12 other persons were given show-cause notice calling upon them to explain various allegations made in the show-cause notice.
Mr. N.Peter submitted a detailed explanation. On detailed consideration of the report submitted by the assignees as well as complainants, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders in his proceedings D5/1854/97, dated 12.09.1998 withdrawing the show-cause notice issued to Mr. N.Peter. Aggrieved by the decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 12.09.1998, two persons instituted W.P.No.10958 of 1999 making similar contentions. Having noticed the detailed order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, this Court held that this Court cannot go into the merits of the reasoning assigned by the Revenue Divisional Officer and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Thus, the issue insofar as Mr. N.Peter, assignment, possession and enjoyment has become final. It appears that there is no further challenge made to the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the decision of this Court in the above writ petition.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.5, the objection raised by the Sub-Registrar is that as the property is classified as assigned land and the original assignee was an Ex-serviceman, unless No Objection Certificate is obtained from the revenue authorities, the deed of conveyance cannot be processed.
6. In the counter-affidavit deposed by the 4th respondent on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that on a review of the alienation of the land assigned to Ex-servicemen, Government issued detailed orders in G.O.Ms.No.307, Revenue Department dated 06.06.2013. This G.O., mandates obtaining of No Objection Certificate from the District Collector by an Ex-servicemen before he intends to dispose of the property and without No Objection Certificate, no deed of conveyance can be entertained. It is further stated that G.O., does not envisage the purchaser of the property from assignee to apply for NOC and, therefore, unless NOC is obtained by the original assignee, property cannot be alienated. It is further vaguely asserted that Mr.Peter was serving personnel at the time of assignment and was not eligible for Government land under Ex-servicemen quota. Except making a vague statement, no material is filed to show as to why he was not entitled for assignment and if he was not entitled to assignment, what steps taken thereon to cancel the assignment. As fairly admitted by the learned Government Pleader so far no orders are passed canceling the assignment made to Mr. Peter on 03.10.1966.
7. Be that as it may, insofar as this writ petition is concerned, the issue for consideration is whether the Sub-Registrar can insist for production of No Objection Certificate from the revenue authority as a condition precedent for receiving of deed of conveyance.
8. The principle of law is well settled. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1653 of 2013 held that the registering authority has no authority or competence to insist for No Objection Certificate from the revenue authorities as a condition precedent to receive the deed of conveyance. The Inspector General of Stamps and Registration issued detailed order not to insist for production of No Objection Certificate. Admittedly, in the instant case, the deed of conveyance sought to be presented by the petitioner was acquired by the petitioner by way of purchase made on 21.09.1995 and after 21.09.1995, property is ceased to be belonging to an Ex-serviceman. Therefore, by the time G.O.Ms.No.307, Revenue (Assignments.I) Department dated 06.06.2013 was issued, the property does not belong to Ex-serviceman and, therefore, the question of person applying for No Objection Certificate under the above G.O., would not arise.
9. Therefore, the action of the Sub-Registrar in insisting for production of No Objection Certificate from the revenue authorities is erroneous. Accordingly, the same is declared as illegal. Consequently, the Sub- Registrar, Medchal Mandal Proper, Ranga Reddy District (5th respondent) is directed to receive and process the deed of conveyance in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.621/3 of Dabilpur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as and when presented by the petitioner without insisting for production of No Objection Certificate from the revenue authorities. If there is no other impediment in considering the document for registration, the Sub-Registrar shall register and release the document to the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 24.11.2014 Kkm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.4824 of 2014 Date: 24.11.2014 Kkm