IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.20316 of 2014 BETWEEN Shaik Rahaman Basha.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A. SUDHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Though the matter was adjourned twice, learned Assistant Government Pleader has not received instructions.
2. The subject matter of the writ petition lies in a narrow compass where the Revenue Divisional Officer, second respondent herein, has passed an order dated 20.11.2013 rejecting the request of the petitioner for conversion of his patta land admeasuring Ac.5. 88 cents in Sy.No.502/B of Alur village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Ongole Division. Petitioner states that he purchased the aforesaid land under registered sale deed bearing document No.4018 of 2010 dated 25.03.2010, which is part of original extent of Ac.29.80 cents in Sy.No.502/B.
The original assignment of this land is stated to be made on 23.06.1917 but, however, at that time no clause as to non-alienation was included in any such assignment and successively the said land changed hands from the original assignee to various persons and as such, the petitioner traces his title to the property through the original owner. Petitioner states that his vendor was granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds with khata No.1140 after due enquiry and subsequently, after purchase, the petitioner sought for conversion under his application dated 18.08.2011. Requisite amount towards conversion fee of Rs.2.05,800/- vide challan No.33333 dated 17.08.2011 and his request was already processed by the Tahsildar, who has given his report being Rc/365/2011 dated 14.11.2011 and 03.10.2013.
3. Petitioner has filed a copy of the said report and states that the Tahsildar has traced title of the petitioner from the beginning and the flow of title establishes petitioner’s entitlement for conversion. However, in spite of the said recommendation, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed the impugned order merely on the ground that the land was found classified as Government Poramboke and was assigned to one Mare Manda Annaji Rao vide D.K.No.162/1917 dated 23.06.1917. Petitioner obtained a copy of the order on coming to know of it under the Right to Information Act and has questioned it in the present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the second respondent has not considered in detail the title vested in the petitioner and merely on the basis of 1917 assignment, has rejected the request of the petitioner.
4. In my view, even if it is assumed that the land was assigned in 1917, prohibition as to alienation would not be a condition of such allotment, as in those days no such clause was incorporated and it is only subsequent to 1954-1955, all assignments were burdened with such restrictive clause as to non-alienation thereof. The report of the Tahsildar, which was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer for consideration, has neither been looked into nor appreciated.
The Revenue Divisional Officer is, therefore, not justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application merely on singular ground of 1917 assignment without taking into consideration the flow of title, which ultimately precedes the title acquired by the petitioner.
The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration by taking into consideration all the attending circumstances including the flow of title and the reports of the Tahsildar and then pass appropriate reasoned order expeditiously.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 7, 2014 DSK