Kotagiri Jaya Prakash Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By Its Principal

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.17648 OF 2017 ORDER:

The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.7.04 cents in Survey No.63 situated at Tadikalapudi Village, Kamavarapukota Mandal, West Godavari District. The said land was purchased by him under registered sale deed dated 18.09.1991 and his vendor purchased the said land under registered sale deed dated 11.11.1965. From the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in possession and cultivating the said land. The petitioner got the pattadar pass book also. When the petitioner was trying to alienate the said land, he came to know that the said land is assigned and prohibited for registration. The petitioner sought the information under the Right to Information Act and it shows that the land is recorded as 'Gayalu' and it was not assigned to anybody. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

This Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and Others vs. State of A.P.,1 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. Further, so far as notified properties falling under clause (e) are concerned, the 1 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) = 2016 (1) ALT 550 (FB)

redressal mechanism under sub-section (4) of Section 22-A would be able to effectively address the grievance provided the mechanism thereunder is effective, 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.

Now, it is stated that a Committee is constituted for dealing with the issues relating to deletion of properties which were included under Section 22(1) of the Registration Act and in view of the same, the petitioner is given liberty to submit an appropriate representation to the said Committee for deletion of the above property under Section 22(1) of the Act. As and when such representation is filed, the Committee shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three (3) months from the date of filing such representation. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J 07.02.2018 pln