E.MOHAN RAMI REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-2022-1-62
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 21,2022

E.Mohan Rami Reddy Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUB REGISTRAR SRIKALAHASTI VS. K GURAVAIAH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF A P VS. P USHAN RANI AND ORS [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.Satyanarayana Murthy - (1.) Writ Petition No.172 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in including the petitioner's land i.e. admeasuring Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.198/1A1 situated at Kotramangalam village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District at Sl.No.28439 vide G.O.Ms.No.215 Revenue (Assgn.I) Department dtd. 13/5/2016 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential endorsement/ proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent dtd. 1/12/2017 vide Rc.No.C1/1752/ 2017 (CSS and LRs) as well as the Endorsement No.Rev-Fsec/207/2017 JA (F8) REV COL CTR, dtd. 4/1/2018 issued by the 4th Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and moreover against the law settled by this Hon'ble Court in W.A.No.950 and 951 of 2007 dtd. 30/12/2008 as well as against the orders passed by this Honble Court in W.P.No.27583 of 2009, W.P.No.27603 of 2009 and W.P.No.27638 of 2009 dtd. 20/6/2011 as well as orders in Review W.P.M.P.No.30375 of 2011 in W.P.No.27583 of 2009, dtd. 13/9/2011 and against the Memo No.1423/Assgn.IV(2)/ 2012 dtd. 20/10/2012 issued by the 1st respondent and settled law laid down by the Constitutional Courts and consequently to set aside the same in the interest of justice" Writ Petition No.122 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in including the petitioner's land i.e. admeasuring Ac.2.53 cents and Ac.1.56 cents (total Ac.4.90 cents) in Sy.No.198/1A5 and 198/7 situated at Kotramangalam village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District at Sl.No.28441 and 28442 vide G.O.Ms.No.215 Revenue (Assgn.I) Department dtd. 13/5/2016 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential endorsement/ proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent dtd. 1/12/2017 vide Rc.No.C1/1752/ 2017 (CSS and LRs) as well as the Endorsement No.Rev-Fsec/207/2017 JA (F8) REV COL CTR, dtd. 4/1/2018 issued by the 4th Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and moreover against the law settled by this Hon'ble Court in W.A.No.950 and 951 of 2007 dtd. 30/12/2008 as well as against the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.27583 of 2009, W.P.No.27603 of 2009 and W.P.No.27638 of 2009 dtd. 20/6/2011 as well as orders in Review W.P.M.P.No.30375 of 2011 in W.P.No.27583 of 2009, dtd. 13/9/2011 and against the Memo No.1423/Assgn.IV(2)/ 2012 dtd. 20/10/2012 issued by the 1st respondent and settled law laid down by the Constitutional Courts and consequently to set aside the same in the interest of justice" Writ Petition No.2113 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in including the petitioner's land i.e. admeasuring Ac.2.26 cents in Sy.No.198/1A4, situated at Kotramangalam village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District at Sl.No.28440 vide G.O.Ms.No.215 Revenue (Assgn.I) Department dtd. 13/5/2016 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential endorsement/ proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent dtd. 1/12/2017 vide Rc.No.C1/1752/ 2017 (CSS and LRs) as well as the Endorsement No.Rev-Fsec/207/2017 JA (F8) REV COL CTR, dtd. 4/1/2018 issued by the 4th Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and moreover against the law settled by this Hon'ble Court in W.A.No.950 and 951 of 2007 dtd. 30/12/2008 as well as against the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.27583 of 2009, W.P.No.27603 of 2009 and W.P.No.27638 of 2009 dtd. 20/6/2011 as well as orders in Review W.P.M.P.No.30375 of 2011 in W.P.No.27583 of 2009, dtd. 13/9/2011 and against the Memo No.1423/Assgn.IV(2)/ 2012 dtd. 20/10/2012 issued by the 1st respondent and settled law laid down by the Constitutional Courts and consequently to set aside the same in the interest of justice" All these petitions are filed claiming same relief by different petitioners having land in different survey numbers, but the issue involved in these petitions is one and the same. Therefore, I am of the view that it is appropriate to decide all the petitions by common order taking Writ Petition No.172 of 2018 as leading petition. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.172 of 2018 that she is the title holder and possessor of an extent of Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.198/1A1 situated at Kotramangalam Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.2120/2012 dtd. 24/3/2012. Originally, the said land belonging to the petitioner and some other land admeasuring Ac.15.28 cents in Sy.No.198/1 was an assigned land and assigned to some persons. The said persons in whose favour the assignment pattas were granted mortgaged the said land to Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (for short "PACS"), Gajulamandyam of Renigunta Mandal, as it is permitted by law. As the said beneficiaries under the assignment failed to discharge the mortgage debt, the PACS, Gajulamandyam auctioned the said land through public auction and in the said auction, vendor of the petitioner purchased the subject land which is permissible under law. The Deputy Registrar, PACS, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta Mandal issued sale certificate in favour of the vendor of the petitioner. Thereafter, a registered sale deed was executed in favour of the vendor of the petitioner. After obtaining the registered sale deed, vendor of the petitioner presented an application to the statutory authorities for grant of pattadar pass book and title deeds under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. As the authority concerned failed to issue pattadar pass book and title deed, vendor of the petitioner approached the High Court and filed W.P. No.27583 of 2009 questioning the action of the respondents therein in not issuing pattadar pass book and title deed and consequently sought a direction to issue the same. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by the High Court vide order dtd. 20/6/2011. Further, the respondents 3 to 5 herein filed Review WPMP No.30375 of 2011 in W.P. No.27583 of 2009 and the said Review petition was disposed of confirming the order passed in the writ petition. The Government issued directions to the District Collector, Chittoor to take action as per the orders passed by the High Court vide Memo No.14283/Assgn.IV/(2)/2012, dtd. 20/10/2011. Pursuant to the orders issued by the Government, Pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in favour of vendor of the petitioner. Thus, the vendor of the petitioner became absolute owner of the property. The petitioner purchased the said property under the registered sale deed, revenue authorities mutated the name of the petitioner in the Revenue records, issued Pattadar Pass book and title deed to the petitioner vide Patta No.158. The name of the petitioner was also uploaded in the web portal i.e., Mee Bhoomi being maintained by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, both in Adangal/Pahani and in 1-B (ROR). After obtaining pattadar pass book and title deed, the petitioner submitted application before the Competent Authority-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor district for conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes, by paying the requisite fee of Rs.2,07,000.00 and the Competent Authority under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 issued proceedings dtd. 12/7/2014 duly converting the land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose. The petitioner also made an application to the Vice Chairman, TUDA, Chittoor District to issue NOC for conversion of the land. A report was called from the Executive Engineer, I&CAD, Irrigation Division, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District and the Executive Engineer inspected the subject land and sent a letter dtd. 5/2/2014 to the Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District stating that there is no water body or irrigation source in the above land of Ac.13.21 cents as per irrigation records and further reported no objection from the department. Basing on the said letter, the Tahsildar issued a certificate dtd. 20/5/2014 endorsing that there is no water body or irrigation source in the land admeasuring Ac.13.21 cents in Sy.No.198/1A1 to 198/1A5 and Sy.No.198/7. Basing on the letter issued by the Executive Engineer as well as Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, respondent No.3 issued a letter dtd. 2/6/2014 to the Vice Chairman, TUDA, wherein respondent No.3 reported no objection to take further action for conversion of the land. Basing on the letter sent by respondent No.3, the Vice Chairman, TUDA sent a letter dtd. 26/4/2017 to the petitioner and others directing them to pay Rs.13,45,000.00 towards conversion charges for an extent of Ac.13.21 cents which includes the land of the petitioner. Consequent to the said letter, the petitioner and others paid the said amount as directed by the Vice Chairman, TUDA. Though the fact situation shows that the petitioner became the owner of the property, respondent No.1 without considering the factual background, without application of mind included the land of the petitioner admeasuring of Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.198/1A1 situated at Kotramangalam village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District in the prohibited list of properties at Sl.No.28439 vide G.O.Ms.No.215 Revenue (Assign.I) Department dtd. 13/5/2016. The very inclusion of land of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.198/1A1 situated at Kotramangalam village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District in the prohibition list is not only arbitrary, illegal but also in consequence of non-application of mind. As a consequence to the inclusion of land of the petitioner in the prohibition list, she made an application to respondent No.2 on 22/2/2017 duly requesting to delete the land from the list of prohibited properties, which was duly notified by the Government vide G.O. Ms.No.215, dtd. 13/5/2015. Respondent No.2 without considering her application and documents submitted by her passed the orders dtd. 1/12/2017 with the following observations: "As per the report of the DLSC, the subject land should have been notified U/s.22-A(1)(b) and not u/s.22-A(1) (e). As the State Level Committee is empowered to deal with cases which come under the purview of sec.22A(1) (e), the matter is referred back to DLSC for disposal within one month". The very inclusion of land of the petitioner i.e. Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.198/1A1, situated at Kotramangalam village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District at Sl.No.28439 vide G.O.Ms.No215, Revenue (Assgn.l) Department, dtd. 13/5/2016 issued by respondent No.1 and the consequential endorsement/ proceedings issued by respondent No.2 dtd. 1/12/2017 vide Rc.No.C1/1752/2017 (CSS&LRs) are perse illegal and unsustainable under law for the reason that the said Government Order was issued against the law laid down by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "the Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District v. K.Guravaiah, 2009 (3) ALT 85 (DB)", wherein it is categorically held that in cases of auction of assigned land by Cooperative banks in pursuance of non-payment of debt amount by the debtor, the transaction becomes valid and in the light of the settled law, the land of the petitioner becomes private patta land and it cannot be included in the prohibited list of properties. It is further contended that the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.27583 of 2009, 27683 of 2009 and 27603 of 2009 dtd. 20/6/2011 are sufficient to conclude that the vendor of the petitioner became absolute owner of the property, thereafter, by virtue of sale deed, the petitioner became the owner of the property as the land ceased to be the assigned land, the inclusion of the land of the petitioner in the list of prohibited properties notified under Sec. 22A (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 is illegal and arbitrary. Further, the Review WPMP No.30375 of 2011 in W.P.No.27583 of 2009 filed by the State on the ground that the land is assigned was rejected by the High Court in clear terms. But the said order was not taken into consideration by the respondents while notifying the property of the petitioner in the G.O.Ms.No.215 dtd. 13/6/2015. Though the District Collector issued letter dtd. 20/10/2012 mentioning that there is no water body in the subject land and changed the classification of the land, the same was totally ignored by the authorities. The authorities without considering the permission granted by the TUDA for conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture and various other documents, notified the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.198/1A1 situated at Kotramangalam Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District as prohibited property from registration is illegal and arbitrary. Before commencement of hearing, the petitioner placed on record additional material papers for perusal, they will also be considered at appropriate stage. Respondents did not file any counter though the writ petition pertaining to the year 2018. Hence, this Court heard the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration. Learned counsel for the petitioner mostly relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "the Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District v. K.Guravaiah" (referred supra). On the strength of the principle laid down in the said judgment, he would contend that when the assigned land was mortgaged with PACS or Bank and sold in the public auction, in view of the exemption under Sec. 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short "Act No.9 of 1977") the land is ceased to be the assigned land and became private patta land, thereby the vendor of the petitioner became owner of the property, who in turn sold the same to the petitioner. This aspect was not considered by respondent No.2, issued such endorsement impugned in the writ petition. Apart from that the definition of assigned land under Sec. 2 (1) of the Act 9 of 1977 made it clear that the land which is mortgaged and sold is not deemed to be assigned land. But this fact was ignored by the respondent No.2 issued proceedings. Earlier proceedings in W.P.No.27583 of 2009 and Review WPMP No.30375 of 2011 in W.P.No.27583 of 2009 would clinchingly establish that the land became private patta land on sale in the auction held by PACS. In addition to the above orders, the proceedings issued by the Vice- Chairman, TUDA, Revenue Divisional Officer etc., clinchingly establish that the land is no more assigned land, but the respondents erroneously included the land in the list of prohibited properties notified under Sec. 22-A (1) of the Registration Act, 1908, requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration would contend that though the land was auctioned by PACS, still it continued to be assigned land and alienation of it is violation of Sec. 3 of the Act 9 of 1977, which requires to be resumed under Sec. 4 of the Act 9 of 1977, but failure to resume the land for violation of conditions is not a ground to delete the land from the list of prohibited properties notified under Sec. 22 A (1) of the Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, the action of the respondents is justified, requested to dismiss the writ petition. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point needs to be answered by this Court are as follows: Whether assigned land sold in auction by Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society is ceased to be assigned land on its sale? If so, whether the action of respondent No.2 in inclusion of the property in the prohibited properties list notified under Sec. 22 A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 is in accordance with law? If not, a direction be issued to the respondents to delete the property from the prohibited properties list notified under Sec. 22 A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908? P O I N T : It is an undisputed fact that the subject property admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.198/1A situated in Kotramangalam, Renigunta Mandal was assigned to K.Nadamuni Reddy and others, who mortgaged the same in favour of PACS. A copy of mortgage deed is also filed along with additional material papers, which would clinchingly establish that the original assignees mortgaged the property with PACS, Gajulamandyam vide L.No.13/9/1/98. Thereafter, they committed default in discharge of mortgage debt. Award was passed by the District Registrar of Cooperative Societies for recovery of the amount. Thereafter, he filed E.P.No.599 of 2001-02 for realization of award debt. PACS, Gajulamandyam brought the property for sale for realization of the mortgage debt under Rule 52 (14) (v) of the Rules framed under the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. In the auction, P.Sivalingam, vendor of the petitioner became the highest bidder, and the bid was knocked down. As such, the vendor of the petitioner became the absolute owner of the land though the land was originally assigned land. The vendor of the petitioner, in turn, executed registered sale deed bearing document No.2120 of 2012 dtd. 24/3/2012 in favour of the petitioner. Earlier, there was a dispute between the vendor of the petitioner and the State as the revenue authorities failed to issue Pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour. As such the vendor of the petitioner was forced to file W.P.No.27583 of 2009, learned single Judge issued a direction. Later, the State filed Review WPMP No.30375 of 2011, wherein the direction issued by the learned single Judge was confirmed. In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, Government issued memo No. 14283/Assgn.IV/(2)/2012, dtd. 20/10/2011 directing the District Collector to implement the order of the Court by mutating the name of the vendor of the petitioner and issue pattadar passbook and title deeds. Accordingly, pattadar passbook and title deed were issued to the vendor of the petitioner, the revenue authorities mutated his name in the revenue records. Thus, the respondents recognized the title of the vendor of the petitioner as the land ceased to be the assigned land. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the same from the vendor of the petitioner. Pursuant to the purchase of the land under a registered sale deed, revenue authorities mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner became absolute owner of the property as there is no prohibition against the registration of such property. Now, the respondents claiming that it is assigned land, which exclusively belongs to the Government and notified the property in the list of prohibited properties under Sec. 22A (1) of the Registration Act, 1908. The main endeavour of the petitioner is that when once the assigned land was sold in the public auction held by nationalised bank or Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, in view of exemption under Sec. 6 of the Act 9 of 1977 the land ceased to be assigned land and became private patta land. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "the Sub- Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District v. K.Guravaiah" (referred supra), wherein the Court discussed about validity of such sale and finally concluded that when bid was knocked down in favour of petitioner is confirmed and sale deed has been executed by the concerned Co-operative Bank, the sale is valid. When once the property was mortgaged to the Cooperative Society, which is not prohibited, sold in the auction for realization of debt due under the award, such transaction is exempted from application of provisions of Act No.09 of 1977. The same view was expressed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "N.Raja Reddy v. the Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District (W.P.No.14743 and 14750 of 2007 dtd. 26/7/2007)." The Division Bench of this Court in "the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Y.Prabhakar Naidu (W.A.No.921 of 2021 dtd. 3/1/2022) reiterated the same principle. In view of the law declared by this Court and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the assigned land mortgaged to Cooperative Bank or Society, if sold in public auction for realisation of the debt due under the award, the same ceased to be assigned land and it will become private patta land on execution of sale deed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative societies. Applying the same principle to the present facts of the case, vendor of the petitioner became the owner of the property pursuant of the purchase of the same in the auction. Later, the petitioner purchased the same under the registered sale deed and became absolute owner of the property. Since the prohibition under the Act 9 of 1977 has no application, the property is deemed to be the private property. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner was mutated in revenue records, issued pattadar passbook and title deed. Apart from issue of Pattadar passbook and title deed while mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records consequent upon purchase of the property, she obtained permission for conversion of agriculture land to non-agriculture purpose from the Revenue Divisional Officer and the correspondence between the TUDA and Revenue Divisional Officer clinchingly establish that the property was treated as private patta land for all practical purposes. Surprisingly, the respondents issued G.O.Ms.No.215 Revenue (Assign.I) Department dtd. 13/5/2016 notifying the property of the petitioner in the list of prohibited properties by exercising power under Sec. 22 A (1) of the Registration Act, 1908. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that when once the assigned land was sold in the public auction, it ceased to be an assigned land in view of the law declared by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "the Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District v. K.Guravaiah" (referred supra), but the respondents did not consider the same in proper perspective and by exercising power arbitrarily included the property in the prohibitory properties list notified under Sec. 22A (1) of the Registration Act. Another Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in "State of A.P. v. P.Ushan Rani, 2018 (1) ALT 62"examined the issue based on the principle laid down in "the Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District v. K.Guravaiah" (referred supra), held that Sec. 5 of the Act 9 of 1977 prohibits registration and, sub-sec. (1) thereof, requires the District Collector to furnish the Registering Officer a list of lands assigned in favour of the landless poor. Sec. 5 (2) requires the Registering Officer not to accept any document relating to the transfer, or creation of any interest in any assigned land as furnished in the list forwarded under sub-sec. (1). Sec. 6 of the Act 9 of 1977 stipulates that nothing in the said Act shall apply to assigned lands held on mortgage, among others, by a Co-operative Society or Scheduled Bank or such other financial institution owned, controlled or managed by a State Government or Central Government, as notified by the Government in this behalf. In the facts of the above judgment, the subject assigned lands were mortgaged by the assignee in favour of the Chittoor District Co- operative Central Bank (a Co-operative Society falling within the ambit of Sec. 6 of the Act No.9 of 1976) is not in dispute. The Court held that the very object of exempting assigned lands mortgaged in favour of, among others, a Co-operative Society from application of the Act is to enable the assignee to obtain loans to finance the agricultural operations carried on by him in the land assigned in his favour. The assigned lands, mortgaged for grant of such loans, constitute the security based on which the bank (Co- operative society in the present case) extends loans to the assignees. Accepting the submission of the learned Government Pleader would mean that, while the borrower is entitled to mortgage the property and secure loans from the bank, such a mortgage is of no consequence since the bank would not be entitled to put the mortgaged property to sale for recovery of its dues. In such an event, the bank would be unable to recover its dues since land is assigned, in the first place, only to those who are landless poor, and do not have sufficient means to eke out their livelihood. Such an understanding of Sec. 6 of the Act 9 of 1977 would negate its very object, and would result in banks' refusing to extend loans, in favour of assignees, if they are disentitled from putting mortgaged assigned lands to sale. In any view of the matter, it is appropriate to advert to certain provisions of the Act No.9 of 1977, more particularly definition of "assigned land" as defined in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 2 of the Act No.9 of 1977. Sec. 2 (1) of the Act No.9 of 1977 is as follows: (1) "assigned land" means 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 and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings; and the word "assigned" shall be construed accordingly; Explanation:- A mortgage in favour of the following shall not be regarded as an alienation, namely,- (i) the Central Government, or the State Government or any local authority ; (ii) any co-operative society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964; and (iii) any bank which includes,- (a) the Agricultural Development Bank ; (b) the Reserve Bank of India constituted under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 ; (c) the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 ; (d) a subsidiary bank as defined in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 ; and (e) a corresponding new bank constituted under Sec. 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 ; Sec. 6 of the Act No.9 of 1977 deals with "exemption from application of the provisions of the Act", which is as follows: "6. Exemption:- Nothing in this Act shall apply to the assigned lands held on mortgage by the State or Central Government, any local authority, a co-operative society, a scheduled bank or such other financial institution owned, controlled or managed by a State Government or the Central Government, as may be notified by the Government in this behalf." A conjoint reading of Sec. 6 and explanation to Sec. 2 (1) of the Act No.9 of 1977 made it clear that the assigned lands can be mortgaged with the Co-operative Societies and banks, and in case of default, the Co-operative Society or Bank can realize the debt by sale of the property. On consideration of the law declared by the Division Benches of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the judgments (referred supra), it is clear that the assigned land, which was mortgaged with the Co-operative Bank or society etc, if sold in the public auction to recover the amount due under the award, the same is ceased to be the assigned land and became private patta land. Accordingly, in the present case, an extent of Ac.02.30 cents in Sy.No.198/1A1 situated at Kotramangalam village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District was sold in public auction by PACS, Gajulamandyam for realization of the debt and executed sale deed in favour of the vendor of the petitioner, who became absolute owner of the said property. Later, the said property was treated as private property for all practical purposes. As such, the land is ceased to be assigned land as on the date of notification vide G.O.Ms.No.215 Revenue (Assign.I) Department dtd. 13/5/2016. Though Sec. 5 of the Act No.09 of 1977 prohibits registration of assigned lands, the same will have no application when the assigned land was sold in public auction by the Cooperative Society as held in "State of A.P. v. P.Ushan Rani" (referred supra). Therefore, notifying the property of the petitioner under Sec. 22-A (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 is illegal, arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside. Here, the petitioner made an application for deletion of property from the prohibitory list. Respondent No.2 considered the same and issued a direction to the State to notify the same under Sec. 22A (1) (b) instead of notifying the property under Sec. 22A (1) (e) of the Registration Act, 1908. The order passed by respondent No.2 is ex facie illegal for the reason that G.O.Ms.No.215 Revenue (Assign.I) Department dtd. 13/5/2016 was not challenged by any third party and even the petitioner did not seek such direction on the ground that Sec. 22A (1) (e) of the Registration Act, 1908 has no application, but respondent No.2 travelled beyond the scope of request, issued such direction. In any view of the matter, when the property was assigned to the individual, Government ceased to be the owner of the property till it is resumed by following the procedure prescribed under the Act. After assignment, the assignee deemed to be the owner for all practical purposes. When the assignee is permitted to obtain loan mortgaging the assigned land with the Cooperative Society or Bank etc. as per Sec. 6 of the Act No.09 of 1977, he has acquired interest in the immovable property i.e. assigned land by virtue of grant i.e. DKT patta. Therefore, question of inclusion of property in the list of prohibited properties notified under Sec. 22A (1) of the Registration Act as if it is belonging to State or Central Government does not arise. Even assuming for a moment, to attract clause (e) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 a notification is required to be published prohibiting registration of properties in which avowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others, which are likely to adversely affect these interests. To attract even Sec. 22A (1) (e) of the Registration Act, 1908, the State has to initiate proceedings for resumption, then only there is a possibility of creating interest in the property by the State would arise. But in the present case, no resumption proceedings are initiated till date. Hence, notifying the property in the list of prohibited properties exercising power under Sec. 22A (1) (e) of the Registration Act, 1908 is ex facie illegal. At the same time, issue of direction by respondent No.2 to include the property under Sec. 22 A (1) (e) of the Registration Act without vesting the land on the Government divesting from alienee on resumption following the necessary procedure prescribed under the Act, does not arise. In view of my foregoing discussion, writ petition No.172 of 2018 deserves to be allowed declaring the action of respondent No.1 in inclusion the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.198/1A1 situated at Kotramangalam Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District at Sl.No.28439 in G.O.Ms.No.215 Revenue (Assgn.1) Department dtd. 13/5/2016 as illegal and arbitrary. In the result, writ petition No.172 of 2018 is allowed declaring the action of respondent No.1 in inclusion of the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.198/1A1 situated at Kotramangalam Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District at Sl.No.28439 in G.O.Ms.No.215 Revenue (Assgn.1) Department dtd. 13/5/2016 as illegal and arbitrary, while setting aside the endorsement/proceedings issued by respondent No.2 dtd. 1/12/2017 vide Rc.No.C1/1752/2017 (CSS&LRs) and the Endorsement No.REV-FSEC/207/2017 - JA (F8) REV COL CTR, dtd. 4/1/2018 issued by respondent No.4. No costs. In view of the detailed order passed in W.P.No.172 of 2018, writ petition No.122 of 2018 is allowed declaring the action of respondent No.1 in inclusion of the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.2.53 cents and Ac.1.56 cents (Total Ac.4.90 cents) in Sy.No.198/1A5 and 198/7 situated at Kotramangalam Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District at Sl.No.28441 and 28442 in G.O.Ms.No.215 Revenue (Assgn.1) Department dtd. 13/5/2016 as illegal and arbitrary, while setting aside the endorsement/proceedings issued by respondent No.2 dtd. 1/12/2017 vide Rc.No.C1/1752/2017(CSS&LRs) and the Endorsement No.REV-FSEC/207/2017 - JA (F8) REV COL CTR, dtd. 4/1/2018 issued by respondent No.4. No costs. In view of the detailed order passed in W.P.No.172 of 2018, writ petition No.2113 of 2018 is allowed declaring the action of respondent No.1 in inclusion of the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.2.26 cents in Sy.No.198/1A4 situated at Kotramangalam Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District at Sl.No.28440 in G.O.Ms.No.215 Revenue (Assgn.1) Department dtd. 13/5/2016 as illegal and arbitrary, while setting aside the endorsement/proceedings issued by respondent No.2 dtd. 1/12/2017 vide Rc.No.C1/1755/2017(CSS&LRs) and the Endorsement No.REV-FSEC/207/2017 - JA (F8) REV COL CTR, dtd. 4/1/2018 issued by respondent No.4. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed. ;


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