SARAGADA KALIDAS REDDY Vs. MANMOHAN SINGH
LAWS(APH)-2022-1-44
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 03,2022

Saragada Kalidas Reddy Appellant
VERSUS
MANMOHAN SINGH Respondents




JUDGEMENT

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. - (1.) The petitioner has questioned the disobedience of the order of this Court dtd. 19/11/2019 in W.P. No.18332 of 2019. This Court passed the following order: "In view of the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and second respondent is directed to consider the representations of the mother of petitioner dtd. 8/10/2017 and 28/5/2018 and considering the facts and circumstances delete the subject land from the list of prohibited properties under Sec. 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.279, dtd. 4/7/2016, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
(2.) The petitioner's case is that pursuant to the said order the petitioner got issued legal notice dtd. 17/8/2021 through his counsel to the respondents to comply with the order in the writ petition, however, no action has been taken by the respondents intentionally and deliberately. Hence, the contempt case.
(3.) The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter contending thus: (a) On receipt of the legal notice from the counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd respondent directed the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) to submit a detailed report in the matter to take up further decision on the representations of the petitioner's mother for de-notification of the subject lands in Survey No.336 P of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam District. (b) After ascertaining the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and after considering the facts and circumstances, the representations of the petitioner were disposed of in accordance with the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dtd. 4/7/2016 in due compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Court. Therefore, there is no truth in the contention of the petitioner that the respondents have not complied with the orders of the Court. (c) The Revenue Divisional Officer also submitted detailed report in the matter after examining all the facts and made the following observations: 1. As per the copy of MDR of Madhurawada Village, the total extent of land measuring an extent of Ac.1366.40 Cts in Sy.No.336 of Mahdurawada Village stands classified as "Konda Poramboke". 2. No assignment was granted in favour of Sri Saragada Kannarao Reddy for Ac.5.00 Cts in S.No.336P of Madhurawada Village at any point of time as contended by the petitioner Sri Saragada Kalidas Reddy. 3. In general, whenever any assignment is made, the name of assignee will be incorporated as assignee in all connected revenue records such as V.A.No.10(1) (not in force), adangals, IB Register etc., But, the name of the alleged assignee is not recorded/reflected in any of the revenue records either as an assignee or even as an encroacher in V.A.No.3 Adangal. 4. Whenever an assignment was granted to any person, it is done only after forming Sub-Division to the proposed extent of assignment duly carved from the original survey number. But assignment cannot be issued for a part filed as unlike in the instant case. But in the instant case, the petitioner claiming that assignment for an extent of Ac.5.00 Cts in Sy.No.336/P of Madhurawada Village of Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal and the total extent of Sy.No.336 is Ac.1366.40 Cts and without any sub-division it is not possible to grant assignment in such a huge extent of Ac.1366.40 Cts in Sy.No.336 of Madhurawada Village. And it is also not possible to identify or occupy the Ac.5.00 Cts without sub-division in the total extent of Ac.1366.40 cts. 5. The alleged assignee or his legal heirs were never in possession and enjoyment of any part of the land in S.No.336 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. As such, their names were also never reflected in any of the revenue records. 6. The contention of the petitioner that his father Sri Saragada Kannarao Reddy was granted assignment for Ac.5.00 Cts covered by Sy.No.336/P of Madhurawada Village vide Rc.No.243/1979, dt.30/6/1979 of the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam is not correct. In general any assignment file or D-Form patta bear D.R.No. (Dharkhast Register number) followed by Fasli year (Fasli Year = Current English year - 590). Under any circumstances the D-patta would not be issued with Rc.No. unlike in this case. This observation concludes that the D-Form patta claimed by the petitioner is fake and fabricated. 7. The petitioner has produced the copy of D-Form Patta said to be issued in favour of his father under Ex-Serviceman category and after examining the said documents, it is found that no survey number with specific sub-division number was mentioned in the said D-Patta and instead it is mentioned as 336/P, which is not correct and not agreeable since the total extent of Sy.No.336 is Ac.1366.40 cts and it is not possible to identify or locate Ac.5.00 cts (said to be assigned) in that huge extent of Sy.No.336 without any subdivision. 8. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dt:4/7/2016, speaks as follows: (1) The procedure of issuing NOC shall be dispensed with. There shall be no need for obtaining 'NOC' in all cases of assignment of Ex-Serviceman and Freedom fighters in which a period of ten (10) years has expired and if there is no dispute on land with the Government. (2) All such cases without dispute shall be deleted from the prohibitory list under Sec. 22-A of Registration Act, 1908 and furnished to the Registration Department. (3) In respect of cases in which there is a dispute with Government about the genuineness of the assignment or otherwise a list of such cases shall be prepared by District Collector and furnished to Registration Department by following the procedure U/s.22-A. The Sub-Registrar shall enter the details of such disputed lands in the online records deleting all other lands in which there is no dispute." (d) Thus, the crucial elements for effecting clearance under the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.279, dtd. 4/7/2016, are: (1) "Undisputed proof of assignment and subsequent conditions of continued possession and enjoyment without any violation. (2) Undisputed proof of the assignment under the category of Ex-servicemen." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.