Assigning Land To Ex-servicemen Is Incentive for Volunteers Serving Armed Forces; Can’t Be Whittled Down By Bureaucratic Procedure: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court made such observations while allowing an appeal of an ex-serviceman.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that assigning land to Ex-Servicemen is an incentive for volunteers who serve in the Armed Forces of India. The High Court further held that such an objective cannot be whittled down by bureaucratic procedure and officials raising a contention that serving members of the Armed Forces should not be assigned land.
The High Court made such observations while allowing an appeal of an ex-serviceman.
The Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice Subhendu Samanta held, “The objective of assigning land to Ex-Servicemen is as a measure of demonstrating the gratitude of the nation to persons defending its borders and people. It is also, in a manner, an incentive for volunteers who serve, in the Armed Forces of India. Such an objective, cannot be whittled down, by bureaucratic procedure and officials raising a contention that serving members of the Armed Forces should not be assigned land.”
Advocate R K Chakravarthy represented the Appellant, while Government Pleader represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant, who is an ex-serviceman, was assigned land in Tirupathi District under the Ex-Servicemen quota since, the appellant had served in the Indian Army as a Subedar from July 9, 1983 to August 1, 2013. The appellant was issued a Pattadar passbook by the revenue authorities. The appellant relied on Government Orders stating that an Ex-Serviceman who has been assigned land can sell the said land after ten years from the date of assignment. He also drew the attention of the Court to the note on the patta given to the appellant, indicating that the patta was given to an Ex-serviceman. The appellant, based on these Government Orders, sought to sell the land assigned to him in the year 2019. At that stage, the appellant was informed that the land had been placed in the prohibitory list maintained under Section-22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, and no documents could be registered in relation to this land.
The appellant made an application requesting the respondents to remove his land from the list of prohibited properties. As no action was taken on his application, the appellant moved an application before the High Court. Thereafter, the District Collector rejected the application of the petitioner to remove the land from the list of prohibitory properties, on the ground that the said land is a forest land and could not be alienated. Aggrieved by this Order of the District Collector, the appellant approached the High Court. The Writ Petition came to be disposed of by a Single Judge, relegating the appellant to the alternative remedy of an appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that no provision of law or material was placed before the Court to support the contention that only Ex-Servicemen could be assigned land under the Ex-Servicemen quota and no serving member of the Armed Forces could be assigned land. The Bench also noticed that the circular of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, referred to by the appellant, provided for the assignment of the land to the serving members of the armed forces. “In such a situation, the lands assigned to serving members of the Armed Forces cannot be resumed ,nor can such an assignment be treated as illegal or irregular”, it mentioned.
Reference was made to the report of the Tahsildar, Yerpedu, obtained by the appellant through the Right to Information Act, wherein it was stated that the land was classified as “Taka Adavi (UAW)”. “It is not clear as to how the District Collector, came to the conclusion that this report of the Tahsildar had classified the land as “Adavi Poramboke”, which has an entirely different connotation and consequence”, it added.
The Bench was of the view that the District Collector had neither applied his mind to the report given by the Tahsildar nor had he based his decision on material which was not available in the report of the Tahsildar. As per the Bench, the District Collector had mechanically passed this Order, without considering the difference between the term of Taka Avadi and the term of Adavi Poramboke. “For all the above reasons, it is held that the patta granted to the appellant, cannot be set aside, on the ground that the land was assigned to him while he was still serving in the army”, it held.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench held that if the District Collector does not delete the land of the appellant from the prohibitory register, it would be open to the appellant, to transfer his land, after the aforesaid period of three months, by presenting a document of transfer to the concerned Sub-Registrar. “Upon such presentation, after the lapse of the aforesaid period of three months, the SubRegistrar shall process and register the document, subject to requirements of law and without reference to inclusion of this land in the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Act, 1908”, it ordered.
Cause Title: V Chenchaiah Naidu v. The State of AP (Case No.: Writ Appeal No.: 753/2025)
Appearance