HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26243 of 2013 % 22.01.2013 Between:
# Smt Sunkara Sujana, W/o S.Venkatadri . Petitioner And:
$ The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and two others.
. Respondents < Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mahmmod Ali ^ Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue ? Cases Referred:
NIL HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26243 of 2013 Date:22.01.2014 Between:
Smt Sunkara Sujana, W/o S.Venkatadri . Petitioner And:
The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and two others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mahmmod Ali Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside memo in File No.B/51/13, dated 29.01.2013, of respondent No.3, whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner in Form-VIA for mutation of her name in the record of rights in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.4.39 cents in Survey No.268/2 of Kammeta Village and Gram Panchayat, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the subject land’).
I have heard Sri Mahmmod Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area).
The petitioner averred that she has purchased the subject land under registered sale deed, dated 21.05.2001, from one Kancherla Buchi Reddy. The petitioner traced the title to the property by referring to the registered sale transactions, viz., sale deed, dated 25.02.1975, executed by one Junnawada Papaiah in favour of Budda Anthaiah and the sale deed, dated 16.07.1998, executed by Budda Anthaiah in favour of the petitioner’s vendor. The petitioner further pleaded that her predecessors-in- title had been in possession of the subject land and that the revenue records recorded their names as the owners/pattadars.
The petitioner filed an application before respondent No.3 in Form-VIA for mutation of her name in the record of rights in respect of the subject land. By the impugned proceedings, the said application was rejected on the ground that it is a Government land and that it is covered by laoni patta. The petitioner assailed the said order by stating that the subject land is neither a Government land nor covered by laoni patta. She has also referred to the circumstance of granting of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of her vendor, to buttress her claim that the subject land is a private land. The petitioner filed copies of the sale deeds, dated 25.02.1975, 16.07.1998 and 21.05.2001, which prove that the sale transactions were registered without any objection by the registering authority. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of her vendor by name Kancherla Buchi Reddy on 08.08.1995, wherein the subject land is described as his own.
In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is, inter alia, stated that as per the khasara pahani, the land admeasuring Acs.14.31 guntas in Survey No.268 was recorded as Kharij Khatha Sarkari; that out of the entire extent, an extent of Acs.4.39 guntas was assigned to one Junnawada Papaiah; and that the said Papaiah has sold the land to one Budda Anthaiah, who, in turn, has sold the same to Kancherla Buchi Reddy, who sold the land to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that the land assigned under the laoni patta is heritable but not alienable. Purporting to support the averments in the counter-affidavit, respondent No.3 has filed certain extracts of the revenue records. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) fairly conceded that these extracts would not pertain to khasara pahani. He is also unable to state from these extracts that any entry has been made in any of these extracts showing that the subject land is covered by a laoni patta.
The counter-affidavit refers to File No.B1/6938/1965, under which the subject land was stated to have been allotted to Junnawada Papaiah. A perusal of the first page of the revenue extract filed by respondent No.3, along with the counter-affidavit shows that it contains the said file number and an Urdu endorsement, which was translated by Sri Mahmood Ali at the hearing. According to him, the purport of the Urdu endorsement is to the effect that the number was referable to a memo No.B1/6938/1965, issued on 10.12.1965 by the Tahsildar’s Office, Hyderabad District. The learned counsel submitted that the said extract does not refer to any laoni patta though the name of Papaiah has been shown at Serial No.3 and the land admeasuring Acs.4.39 guntas has been mentioned in Column No.7.
As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.3 failed to substantiate that the subject land was covered by laoni patta. Even assuming that the land was originally assigned under laoni patta, unless the said patta contains a condition prohibiting alienation, the assignee under such patta is entitled to sell the land.
While dealing with a case filed against an order resuming the land under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, this Court in Akkem Anjaiah Vs. Dy. Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, held in para No.9 as under:
“In the instant case, respondent No.1 has not given any finding that he has perused the patta granted in favour of Maqdoom Shareef under the Laoni Rules, 1950. Curiously, he placed the burden on the petitioners to show that the pattas does not contain any condition against alienation. Indeed, it is for respondent No.1 to be first satisfied that the land, which was alienated is “assigned land” within the meaning of Section 2(1) of Act 9 of 1977, which defined “assigned land” as the lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor persons under the Rules for the time being in force subject to the condition of non- alienation. In my opinion, the jurisdiction of respondent No.1/competent authority, under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977, for cancellation of the assignment and resumption of the land, can be exercised only on the prima facie satisfaction that the said land is an assigned land, which necessarily means that the assignment made in respect thereof contains a condition against alienation. Respondent No.1 was, therefore, not expected to issue the show-cause notice without looking into the patta granted under the Laoni Rules. He has completely misdirected himself in throwing the burden on the petitioners to show that the Laoni patta does not contain the condition against the alienation. On the contrary, the initial burden is on him to show that the said patta contained such a condition. In the light of the admitted fact that the patta granted in favour o f Maqdoom Shareef, who is the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, was much prior to the commencement of the revised policy, vide G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.07.1958, and in the absence of any finding that the said patta contained the condition against alienation, the very invocation of the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 by respondent No.1 is wholly without jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. As a consequence thereof, proceedings No.A/1448/07, dated 24.05.2008, issued by respondent No.1, is quashed.”
As noted herein before, respondent No.3 has not pleaded in the counter-affidavit that the purported laoni patta contained any condition against alienation. Respondent No.3 has not filed a copy of the purported laoni patta nor he has pleaded in the counter-affidavit that he has perused the laoni patta and that the same contains any prohibition of alienation. Thus, respondent No.3 has failed to discharge the initial burden placed on him to show that there is a prohibition of alienation. The registered sale transactions taken on as many as three occasions and the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to the petitioner’s predecessors-in-title would establish that the subject land was treated as a free hold land. Having allowed the parties to sell the property from time to time, the respondents have acquiesced in raising the plea that the subject land belongs to the Government at this length of time.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned proceedings are set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to mutate the name of the petitioner in respect of the subject land and issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in her name within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.32417 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.
22ndJanuary, 2014
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY
Note:
LR copies to be marked. B/o DR