Dandu Rajesh, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE A.RAMALI NGESWARA RAO Writ Petition No.6700 of 2018 Order:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

The petitioner states that he purchased the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.5-00 cents, situated in RS No.94/9 of Chintampalli village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District, from his vendor under a registered sale deed bearing document No.6271 of 2010. His vendor purchased the said land in open auction conducted by the District Cooperative Central Bank, Eluru, in E.P.Nos.1204 and 1205 of 2005-06. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The petitioner states that the revenue authorities are not mutating his name in the manual and online revenue records and not issuing E-passbooks in respect of the said land and he was informed that his land was included in the prohibited properties list and as such online entries shall not be made in respect of his land.

The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that as his Vendor purchased the property through open auction conducted by the Cooperative Society, the prohibition contained in the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 will not apply to his land and as such his land should not be included in the prohibitory list. This Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. State of A.P.1 considered the said issue and held as follows: 35.

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 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 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. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

________________________ A. RAMALI NGESWARA RAO, J Date: 07.03.2018 Nsr