9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns several corrections regarding the names of the alleged assignees by rounding off the names originally written and writing fresh names. It is the common case of both the parties that revenue records have been tampered with. As the State has failed to prove that the assignments containing the condition of non-alienation were made for the first time after 18-6-1954, it is not possible for this Court to invalidate the sales purportedly on the ground that such sales are in violation of the condition of non-alienation contained in the assignments. For the above mentioned reasons, do not find any merit in Company Application - COMPANY APPLICATION No.1528/2011, COMPANY APPLICATION No.6 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 28-7-2014 - C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. For The Applicant : Sri P. Roy Reddy For The Respondent : Sri M. Anil Kumar, Official Liquidator, Sri Chitturu Srinivas, Special Government Pleader COMMON ORDER: As the subject matter of both these applications is common, they are heard and being disposed of together. Company Application No.1528/2011 is filed by the auction-purchaser of land admeasuring Ac.350-00 in Ulichi and Devarampadu villages, Prakasam District, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lichi and Devarampadu villages. The State has filed Company Application No.108/2012 for impleadment in Company Application No.1528/2011. This application was supported by an affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole. This Court, by order dated 15-2-2012 ordered impleadment of the State, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar, Ongole as respondent Nos.4 to 6 in Company Application No.1528/2011. Thereafter, the State has filed Company Application No.1023/2012 for setting aside the auction held by the Official Liquidator in respect of Ac.239-85 cents at Ulichi village. As the said application was found bereft of proper details, this Court dismissed the same by order dated 20-11-2012 with liberty to the State to file a fresh application. Accordingly, the State has filed Company Application No.6 of 2013 for a similar relief. As noted above, the first application i.e., Company Application No.108/2012 for impleadment filed by the State, was supported by an affidavit of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, wherein it is inter alia averred that as per the Re-survey and Re-settlement Register (RSR), an extent of Ac.200-00 purchased by the company is an assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signed by way of grant of D-Form pattas and the unassessed waste lands were also available for assignment. She has further stated as under: After preparation of Resurvey Resettlement Register the then Govt. has assigned land to the landless poor persons during the year 1921, 1936 etc., on darakast. As all these lands are treated as Government lands, after formation of State of Andhra Pradesh the Government has taken up some crash programmes to distribute all these lands which are fit for cultivation and assigned the land to the landless poor people on darakast from 1950 onwards in a phased manner. Now the Govt. has proposed to distribute available Government land to the landless poor people on darakast form under 6th phase during this year. (Emphasis added) The Collector further averred that under Board Standing Order-15, only landless poor persons who do not have more than Ac.2-50 of wet land or Ac.5-00 of dry land are eligible for assignment, but the executants of the registered sale deeds in favour of the company in liquidation are owning more than Ac.5-00 of dry lands and that therefore the validity of the said documents itself is questionable. She has reiterated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Sl.Nos.1 to 162 and took pains to impress upon this Court that the assignments in respect of those lands were made from 1969 onwards. She has further stated that out of Ac.239-85 cents claimed by the Government as covered by assignments, an extent of Ac.165-27 cents was allotted to VANPIC Projects. She has filed copies of RSR, extracts of Assignment Registers and Village Accounts, in order to fortify her plea that the assignments were made after 1969 and that the revenue record has been tampered by rounding off the names and entering different names. In Company Application No.6 of 2013, the State has let in oral evidence by examining K.M. Rosemond, Tahsildar, Ongole, as PW-1. She has filed her evidence affidavit in lieu of chief-examination and marked Ex.A-1 to A- 5. Ex.A-1 is the Assignment Register (D.K. Register), Ex.A- 2 is the Re-Survey and Re-Settlement Register of 1908, Ex.A-3 is 10(1) Accounts Register (Vol.II), Ex.A-4 is 10(1) Accounts Register (Vol.III) and Ex.A-5 is D.K. File (F.Dis.No.163/79). The Counsel for Federal Bank marked Ex.B-1 letter dated 23-1-2012 of the Assistant Director addressed to the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, through PW- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any. She has deposed that as the allotment made to M/s. VANPIC Projects Pvt. Ltd. was under cancellation, prayer for delivery of vacant possession of the entire extent of Ac.239-00 was made in Company Application No.6 of 2013. She has however admitted that no evidence is produced to show that the allotment of land made to M/s. VANPIC Projects Pvt. Ltd. was under cancellation. PW-1 has admitted that she has not filed any document to show that the assignments of lands made even prior to 1956 contained a clause prohibiting alienation. She has pleaded ignorance of the publication made by the Official Liquidator on 6-1-2010 inviting tenders for sale of lands. She has denied that Exs.A-1 to A-4 were recently prepared with a view to favour M/s. VANPIC Projects Pvt. Ltd. In the cross-examination made by the Counsel for the Federal Bank, PW-1 stated that though the Adangals in respect of the lands in dispute are available, they have not been filed and that she has not verified the Adangals to know whether in the year 1993-94 itself, the name of the company in liquidation was mentioned as pattadar. PW-1 denied the suggestion that she has been wilfully withholding the Assignment Registers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Special Government Pleader that they are very old and they relate to the period much prior to the year 1969. As per the said documents, Sy.No.415 is sub-divided into Sy.No.415/1 to 6 with different extents. In respect of Sy.No.415/1, an extent of Ac.1-40 cents is shown in the name of Kommu Raghavulu. Same extent of land was included by the State Government in Sl.No.50 of the evidence affidavit wherein it was shown to have been assigned in the year 1970 to Kommu Peda Raghavulu. Based on this, the learned Counsel has pleaded that the said land was assigned much prior to the year 1970 and that the same has been shown to have been once again assigned in the year 1970. Similarly, the name of Kommu Chinna Raghavulu is shown at Sl.No.51 of the evidence affidavit as the assignee in the year 1970, whereas old Village Account No.2 has shown the name of the same person as having been granted assignment much prior to 1970. Several such instances have been shown by the learned Counsel for the auction purchaser with reference to old Village Account No.2, a perusal of which would show that the names of the persons who were shown to have been assigned land prior to 1970 have again been shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of non-alienation and there was no reason for the Collector not to have included these lands in the prohibited list under Section 5 of the 1977 Act. It is not the pleaded case of the State that these lands were included in the prohibited list and communicated to the Registering authorities. (4) Though vide publicity was given by the Official Liquidator by way of paper publication of the notification inviting bids, in pursuance of which the auction was held, no Revenue functionary has raised any objection to the auction. (5) That the fact that all these lands were registered under various registered sale transactions by the registering authority without any demur would also give rise to a presumption that they were not assigned for the first time in the year 1969 and that on the contrary they were assigned prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18-6-1954. (6) Assuming that the lands fall within the definition of Section 2(1) of the 1977 Act, even if they were sold in violation of the provisions thereof, they will not automatically get re-vested in the State. Unless the lands were resumed from the possession of the persons who were allegedly in unlawful occupation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
