Andhra Pradesh HC Directs Deletion of Ex-Serviceman's Land from Prohibited List After Years of Non-Compliance

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed a writ petition by an 80-year-old ex-serviceman whose assigned land remained on the Section 22-A prohibited properties list despite two government memos and a prior court order directing its removal.

Justice B. Krishna Mohan, sitting singly at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, allowed a writ petition filed by M. Appa Rao, an 80-year-old ex-serviceman from Visakhapatnam, on 16 June 2026. The petition challenged the failure of revenue and registration authorities to delete his assigned land from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, despite a government memo dated 27 February 2019, a further government memo dated 13 December 2024, and a prior order of the same court dated 4 March 2020 — all directing that deletion. The court found the continued inaction to be a deliberate denial of relief to a senior citizen whose title had been conclusively established, and directed compliance within two months.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Appa Rao was assigned Ac. 5.00 cents in Survey No. 352/3 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, under the Ex-Serviceman category, by D-Form patta in D.R. No. 436/87 dated 5 June 1979. He had applied to the then Assignment Special Tahsildar on 15 April 1978, and after due enquiry the land was assigned in his favour. He remained in continuous possession from the date of assignment.

In 2002, the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural, unilaterally cancelled the assignment vide proceedings Rc. No. 99/2001/A dated 20 January 2002, alleging that the petitioner had not brought the land under cultivation within three years of assignment. No show cause notice was served before this cancellation. Appa Rao learnt of the resumption only in 2010, through a reply to an RTA application, and then appealed before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Visakhapatnam.

The RDO, acting as appellate authority, set aside the Tahsildar's resumption order vide D.Dis. No. 7544/2013/C dated 5 November 2016. The appellate authority found that the Tahsildar had not served any show cause notice and had not proved that the cultivation condition was violated. The land was directed to be restored to the petitioner. The RDO also recommended to the District Collector that the land be considered for deletion from the prohibited list under G.O. Ms. No. 279, Revenue (Assn. I) Department, dated 4 July 2016, while noting that VUDA appeared to be in possession of the property.

G.O. Ms. No. 279 provides that for assignments to servicemen and freedom fighters where ten years have elapsed and there is no dispute with the government about the genuineness of the assignment, the land must be deleted from the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, without requiring a No Objection Certificate.

A Parallel Claim and Protracted Litigation

A competing claim over the same land was raised by Smt. K. Ramayamma, who alleged that the land had been assigned to her husband Sri Koyya Gurumurthy Reddy under the Ex-Serviceman category. The Tahsildar rejected her claim in 2007, finding that no such assignment had ever been made in favour of her husband, vide Rc. No. 848/2007(iii)/A dated 31 December 2007. The revenue authorities also lodged a report with Bheemunipatnam Police Station, and FIR No. 13 of 2005 was registered against her for forging and fabricating a D-Form patta. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, passed an order in Rc. No. 79/2005/E1 dated 8 December 2014 holding that the D-Form patta produced by Smt. K. Ramayamma was a fabricated document.

Smt. K. Ramayamma filed W.P. No. 20342 of 2012 and W.P. No. 34450 of 2015 before the erstwhile common High Court at Hyderabad. Those writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 20 December 2018, directing the respondents to consider her case in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 279. A modification order dated 11 February 2019 set aside the District Collector's rejection order and directed fresh consideration.

Appa Rao and the State of Andhra Pradesh challenged the modification order before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A. Nos. 301, 303 and 304 of 2019. The Division Bench set aside the orders on the ground that the learned Single Judge of the Telangana High Court lacked jurisdiction over a matter relating to Andhra Pradesh. The writ petitions were restored for fresh adjudication.

Smt. K. Ramayamma then filed SLP Nos. 3096–3098 of 2021 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order, holding that under Section 40(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, the High Court at Hyderabad had jurisdiction to hear appeals relating to proceedings dealt with by the common High Court before the formation of the separate High Court. The Supreme Court granted liberty to the State of Andhra Pradesh to file fresh writ appeals before the Telangana High Court within 30 days.

The State filed W.A. Nos. 809 and 810 of 2023 before the Telangana High Court. Those appeals were dismissed on 23 September 2023 on the technical ground that the orders of 20 December 2018 and 11 February 2019 were passed on the consent of counsel and contained no element of adjudication. Appa Rao's own writ appeal, W.A. No. 599 of 2023, was dismissed on the same date on the same reasoning.

Review petitions filed by the State before the Telangana High Court were disposed of on 20 January 2025, directing that the authority considering Smt. K. Ramayamma's representation under G.O. Ms. No. 279 must take into account the material forming part of the rejection orders in Rc. No. 79/2005/E1 dated 8 December 2014, and must put on notice all departments or organisations claiming possession of the subject land. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, addressed the Government on 27 February 2025 seeking a review of the government memos dated 27 February 2019 and 13 December 2024, citing the need to adjudicate the competing claims together.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Krishna Mohan examined the full sequence of orders and found that the petitioner's title had been established at every stage. The RDO's appellate order of 5 November 2016 set aside the resumption on merits, finding no show cause notice and no proof of violation of the cultivation condition. The government's own Memo dated 27 February 2019 recorded that there was no dispute with the government about the assignment in favour of Appa Rao and directed deletion of the land from the prohibited list under Section 22-A. This court's order in W.P. No. 4291 of 2020 dated 4 March 2020 declared the respondents' inaction illegal and arbitrary and directed implementation of the government memo. The government's further Memo dated 13 December 2024 reiterated the same directions and additionally found that the D-Form patta relied upon by Smt. K. Ramayamma was “fake, forged and invented for the purpose of grabbing the land.”

The court rejected the respondents' attempt to treat Smt. K. Ramayamma's claim as a live parallel claim that justified non-compliance. The court observed that her claim had been enquired into by competent authorities who conclusively found her patta to be fake and fabricated, and that criminal action had been initiated against her. The Telangana High Court's review order of 20 January 2025 directed fresh consideration of her representation under G.O. Ms. No. 279 — but the court noted that upon such consideration, her claim necessarily ought to have been rejected in accordance with that G.O., given the established finding about the fabricated patta. No de-notification order had been issued by any authority or court in favour of Smt. K. Ramayamma.

The court also addressed the handing over of the property to VUDA. It held that in view of the RDO's appellate order of 5 November 2016 setting aside the resumption, any subsequent act of handing over the property to VUDA — vide a receipt dated 24 January 2005 — became void and without legal effect. The petitioner was deemed to be in possession of the subject land with valid title.

The court referred to a CCLA circular, Lr. No. Ass. I(1)/350/2002 dated 4 May 2022, which states that an ex-serviceman assigned land is at liberty to sell it after ten years, and that the District Collector need only verify whether the assignment is genuine and whether the assignee is truly an ex-serviceman. Neither the Tahsildar nor the RDO had disputed the genuineness of Appa Rao's patta. The District Collector could not act contrary to that record.

The court characterised the respondents' conduct as “arm twisting” to deny and delay relief by protracting litigation on one count or another. It observed that the petitioner is an octogenarian ex-serviceman who continues to receive benefits under that category, which itself establishes his identity and entitlement. The court found that unless a quietus was given to the litigation, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and hardship, particularly as the sale of the subject land was the only means available to him to clear debts during his lifetime.

Order

The writ petition was allowed. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam (Respondent No. 2) and the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam (Respondent No. 4) were directed to implement the orders passed by the State Government vide Memos dated 13 December 2024 and 27 February 2019 by deleting the subject land — Ac. 5.00 cents in Survey No. 352/3 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal — from the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, and to grant all consequential reliefs within two months from the date of receipt of the order. There was no order as to costs. Interlocutory applications pending in the matter, including I.A. No. 1 of 2025 and I.A. No. 1 of 2026, were closed. Any interim order was deemed vacated.