Smt P. Hymavathi v. State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Secretary, Stamps And

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.43132 of 2017 ORDER:

The petitioner states that she is one of the parties to Document No.P84/17. She states that her vendors had different extents of lands in different survey numbers. In respect of the subject lands, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were already issued and they have been cultivating the lands from generations. After due verification and enquiry, the subject lands were computerized by issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds. In all those records, it was mentioned against the said survey numbers that those lands were ancestral properties. It is stated that in the recent past, the said records were computerized in the process of computerization of lands in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, as per ROR 1 (B) Adangal, dated 16.08.

2017, the survey numbers, in which the subject lands are situated, are ancestral properties of vendors of the petitioner. However, on presentation of the document for registration on 21.11.2017, the fourth respondent kept the same pending vide P.Document No.84/17 and ultimately, the same was refused on 04.12.2017 with an endorsement that as the subject land is classified as 'Government land/DKT land'.

2.

The petitioner states that the said property should not have been included in the list of prohibited lands.

3.

This Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and Ors. v Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and Ors1 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 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.

4.

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.

5.

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 22, 2018 YVL

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.43132 of 2017 Date: 22.01.2018 YVL