SALE OF ASSIGNED LAND OF EX- SERVICE MEN AFTER 10 YEARS, NOT QUESTIONABLE= The lands that are assigned to Ex-servicemen, however, are treated differently. For all practical purposes, such lands are taken away from the purview of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1994, directing that, after expiry of ten years from the date of assignment, the Ex-servicemen shall be entitled to alienate the land assigned to them. In case, ten years have expired from the date of assignment in favour of the vendor’s vendor of the petitioner, the respondents cannot object the alienation made by his vendor.


WP 12971 / 2012

WPSR 68807 / 2012
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
M. NAGIREDDI, R.R.DIST.  VSTAHSILDAR, MADANAPALLY & ANO.
PET.ADV. : NAGARJUNA REDDYRESP.ADV. : GP FOR REVENUE
SUBJECT: STAMPS & REGISTRATIONDISTRICT:  CHITTOOR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

 

WRIT PETITION No.12971 of 2012

 

ORDER:

 

 

One Sri Peddappa was assigned an extent of Ac.0.32 cents of land in Survey No.1333/6 of Pothapolu Village, Madanapally Mandal, Chittoor District, in his capacity as Ex-Serviceman. He, in turn, sold the said property to one Sri Naresh Kumar. The petitioner claims to have purchased the same from Sri Naresh Kumar. He intended to sell the property and claims to have approached the 2nd respondent with a request to furnish the necessary particulars. His grievance is that the 2nd respondent is not entertaining the document on the ground that the land in question is an assigned one. Placing reliance upon the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993, the petitioner seeks a declaration to the effect that his vendor’s vendor is entitled to alienate the property.

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

          Whenever the Government assigns land to the deserving persons, conditions are incorporated prohibiting alienation.  The lands that are assigned to Ex-servicemen, however, are treated differently.  For all practical purposes, such lands are taken away from the purview of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.  The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1994, directing that, after expiry of ten years from the date of assignment, the Ex-servicemen shall be entitled to alienate the land assigned to them.  In case, ten years have expired from the date of assignment in favour of the vendor’s vendor of the petitioner, the respondents cannot object the alienation made by his vendor. 

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the
2nd respondent shall entertain and process the document that may be presented by the petitioner, 
in accordance with law, in case the period of ten years is expired from the date of assignment. There shall be no order as to costs.

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.

 

     ______________________

   L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J


Dt:27.04.2012.

kdl


 

 











 

 
















































Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.