VEMULA SATYAVATHI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KRISHNA MACHILIPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by endorsement dated 22.10.1999 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Machilipatnam. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was assigned an extent of Acs.1.19 in R.S. No.81/2 of Potepally Village on payment of consideration. After his death the petitioner is cultivating the land. When the petitioner approached the authorities for mutation of the revenue record it was refused and therefore she filed a suit being O.S.No.203 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Machilipatnam which was decreed on 10.8.1994 directing the District Collector to alter 10(1) account and mutate the name of the petitioner and enter in revenue records. The Government's appeal being A.S. No.101 of 1994 was also dismissed on 22.8.1997. Therefore, mutation was carried out. After the land was mutated in the name of petitioner, she decided to alienate the property to third parties and presented a sale deed before the third respondent, who by endorsement dated 23.8.1999 declined to register the document on the ground that the land is registered in revenue records as assigned land and that unless there is permission from the District Collector the same cannot be registered. In those circumstances, the petitioner again approached the Mandal Revenue Officer with a request to delete the land from the list of assigned land since assignment was made on the basis of consideration. The Mandal Revenue Officer therefore passed the endorsement as follows: The contents of the petition of Smt.Vemula Satyavathi, W/o (Late) Vemula Satyanarayana of Nandigama Village of Pedana Mandal seeking for Deletion of Entry of assignment of land in R.S. No.49/1.B Ac.1.17 cents and R.S. No.89/2 Ac.0.80 cents assigned in favour of Vemula Satyanarayana S/o. (Late) Rattaiah of Pothepalli on 'D' Form Patta is examined in detail. The petitioner is informed that the surplus land assigned on 'D' patta is "Heritable but not alienable to Third Party". Hence, Smt. Vemula Satyavathi, W/o. (Late) Satyanarayana is therefore informed that the request of the petitioner is negatived.

(2.) The writ petition was opposed by the respondents inter alia on the ground D-form patta granted to the husband of the petitioner contains a clause that the land is heritable, but not alienable. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to transfer or alienate the land in favour of third parties.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the sale price of the land was collected from husband of the petitioner, the petitioner has absolute right to alienate the properties and Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 has no application to the facts of the case. This is refuted by the learned Government Pleader for Assignment Sri Vijaya Kumar placing reliance on Section 14 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, the Land Reforms Act).