C. Manoranjan v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.544 of 2018 ORDER:

The petitioner states that his father gifted the land to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Survey No.212-1, situated at A.Narayanapuram Village, Ananthapuram District, in his favour by way of Gift Settlement Deed dated 20.08.2007 vide document bearing No.10776/2007. Since then the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner intends to sell the said property in favour of third parties and accordingly, he approached the registering authority for registration, who in turn informed that the said land is in the list of prohibited properties. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the fourth respondent on 18.05.2017 for deletion of aforesaid survey number form the prohibited list and when the fourth respondent refused to delete the same, the preset writ petition is filed.

2.

This Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. State of A.P1 considered the said issue and held as follows: 35.1 Further, as noticed earlier the State Government is empowered either suo motu or on application to consider the grievances against inclusion of any property in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of Registration Act and is also empowered to de-notify either in full or in part the notification issued under sub-section (2). In our opinion, the redressal mechanism is available only with respect to notifications published relating to the properties falling under clause (e) of Section 22-A.

Hence, any grievance of the parties with reference to the properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) will have to be questioned by the aggrieved parties only by appropriate proceedings before a competent Court and the adjudication by such Court would be final.

expeditious, fair, and judicious. Thus, in order to make an effective redressal mechanism, we deem it appropriate to direct the respective Governments of both the States to constitute a Committee or establish a Forum within time frame, may be comprising of Principal Secretary of Revenue, Director of Survey and Land Records and a retired Judicial Officer of the rank of a District Judge which shall meet periodically to consider the grievances of the persons affected by the notifications. The Committee shall be empowered to examine relevant records and then pass a reasoned order either accepting or rejecting the grievance by either confirming/deleting/modifying any such property from the notified list of properties. In our view, such orders passed by the Committee shall be binding on the State as well as on the aggrieved person and in the event of any of them being aggrieved thereby, they shall have to approach a competent Court of Law for redressal of their grievance.

3.

In view of the same, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the said grievance redressal committee for appropriate relief by making proper application. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grievance redressal committee was not constituted and there is no one to redress the grievance of the petitioner. If no grievance redressal committee is constituted as directed by this Court, the petitioner is given liberty to submit proper representation to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the grievance expressed by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. 4.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J JANUARY 31, 2018 YVL

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.544 of 2018 Date: 31.01.2018 YVL