Sunkara Satyanarayana v. The State Of A.P.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.42279 of 2017 ORDER:
The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0.06 cents in Survey No.277/1A of Uppaluru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed. When the petitioner presented the document for registration, the same was returned on the ground that the said land was included in the prohibited list. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation before the third respondent stating that the land was alienated in his favour on payment of market value and requested to remove the said land from the prohibited list.
2.
The petitioner states that the said land is neither a Government nor an assigned land and he submitted representation to respondent No.3 and when no action was taken, the present Writ Petition is filed.
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 1 2016 (1) ALT 550 (FB)
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. 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.
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 23, 2018 YVL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.42279 of 2017 Date: 23.01.2018 YVL