Land Assignment To Serving Soldiers Valid; National-Gratitude Purpose Cannot Be Diluted By Bureaucracy; AP High Court Quashes Collector’s Refusal To Permit Sale
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Subhendu Samanta allowed the appeal of an ex-serviceman who challenged the District Collector’s refusal to permit sale of land assigned under the ex-servicemen quota on the premise that the allotment was invalid because it was made during his military service. Drawing attention to a 2022 circular of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration that enables serving personnel to seek such assignments, the Court held that the grant could not be treated as irregular and that the land had been wrongly classified as forest property. The Bench directed the District Collector to remove the land from the prohibitory list and permit registration of its transfer after the stipulated period.
The appellant, an ex-serviceman, received assignment of Ac.4.35 cents of land in Paagali Village in 2009 through a DKT patta. Revenue records, including the pattadar passbook and ROR 1B, reflected him as the pattadar. He later sought to sell the land, stating that government orders permitted alienation after ten years from assignment. When he approached the registration authorities, he was informed that the land had been placed in the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, preventing registration of any documents.
The appellant submitted that his land should be removed from the list, relying on government orders related to ex-servicemen and noting on his patta indicating assignment under that category. He also referred to a 2022 circular of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration permitting both serving and retired personnel to apply for land assignment.
The District Collector, after obtaining reports from the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar, concluded that the land corresponded to an earlier survey number categorized as forest-related land and that the assignment was irregular because it occurred while the appellant was still in service. The appellant disputed this, producing a 2022 report obtained under the Right to Information Act, which stated that the land was classified as “Taka Adavi (UAW),” and contended that this classification did not indicate forest land.
The Court recorded: “This Court had not been shown any provision of law nor has any material been placed before this Court, to support the contention that only Ex-Servicemen can be assigned land under the Ex-Servicemen quota and no serving member of the Armed forces can be assigned land. Further, the circular of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, referred to, by the learned counsel for the appellant, clearly provides for 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.”
The Court observed: “On the issue of land classification, the Court recorded: “The report of the Tahsildar, Yerpedu, dated 07.11.2022… states clearly that the land in Sy.No.130 is an extent of Ac.217.28 cents and is classified as ‘Taka Adavi (UAW)’.” It further remarked: “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.”
Regarding the Collector’s decision, the Court observed: “In the circumstances, it is clear that the District Collector has neither applied his mind to the report given by the Tahsildar or has based his decision on material which was not available in the report of the Tahsildar.” It added: “The only conclusion that can be drawn by this Court is that the District Collector had mechanically passed this order, without considering the difference between the term of Taka Avadi and the term of Adavi Poramboke.”
Addressing the nature of the land, the Court stated: “The record, available with the authorities, as reported by the Tahsildar… clearly shows that the lands classified as Taka Avadi and not Adavi Poramboke.” It also noted the appellant’s contention that the term signified unassessed waste land, stating: “As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the term Taka Adavi essentially relates to land which is in an ambiguous situation of neither being a forest nor a patta land as it is treated as unassessed waste land.”
The Court held: “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 would only be appropriate to allow this Writ Appeal with a direction to the District Collector, Tirupati, to pass appropriate proceedings, deleting the land assigned to the appellant from the prohibitory list, within a period of three months from the date of this Order.
“In the event of the District Collector not deleting the land of the appellant from the prohibitory register, it would be open to the appellant, to transfer his land… and the Sub-Registrar shall process and register the document… without reference to inclusion of this land in the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Act, 1908.”
“Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: M. R. K. Chakravarthy, Advocate
Case Title: V. Chenchaiah Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010081542025
Case Number: Writ Appeal No.753 of 2025
Bench: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao; Justice Subhendu Samanta
