AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ninala Jayasurya, J
The writ petitioner, who served in the Boarder Security Force, filed the present Writ Petition claiming that the land of an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Survey No.337 of Thadakanapalle Village fields, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District was assigned to him vide Proceedings dated 05.02.2009, that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993, he is entitled to alienate the said land to third parties as 10 years period from the date of Assignment was expired, further that the said land was included in the prohibited category list though the same is to be deleted from the said list in terms of G.O.Ms.No.279 dated 04.07.2016 and in view of the same, the 5th respondent is refusing to entertain the Sale Deed for registration and seeks direction to the 5th respondent to entertain the Sale Deed for registration in respect of the subject matter land by declaring the action of respondent No.2 in including the same in the prohibited category list as illegal, arbitrary etc., and to delete it from the said list.
The respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit inter alia stating that the assignment of land in favour of Boarder Security Force constable cannot be considered as assignment under Ex-Servicemen category in terms of Board Standing Orders(B.S.O.) 15, that no procedure prescribed under B.S.O.15 for assignment of Government land to the petitioner is found to be followed and further that survey No.337 of Thadakanapalle Village consisting of total extent of Ac.286.26 cents was not sub-divided to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents before making assignment in favour of the petitioner, which is against the assignment procedure etc., The counter-affidavit also refers to recommendations of the 4th respondent for cancellation of assignment of the subject matter land made in favour of the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.
On an appreciation of the rival contentions and the material on record, there is no dispute that the petitioner served as a Constable in Border Security Force(B.S.F.) and the patta i.e.,Ex.P2 dated 05.02.2009 is genuine. Therefore, the controversy is whether the petitioner, who was working as B.S.F.Constable at the relevant point of time was not eligible for assignment of Government land that too, under Ex-servicemen category as per B.S.O. In order to adjudicate the controversy, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant B.S.Os as provided in Part-II, which deals with disposal of land.
B.S.O.15 contemplates Grant of lands for occupation, subject to payment of assessment. Section I of Part-II deals with the categories/classification of land and Section II deals with Ordinary Rules which apply to the disposal of assessed lands, not being reserved. B.S.O. 3(2) deals with definitions and as per B.S.O.3(2)(v), the term “Ex-Servicemen” refers to –
(a) Jawans discharged on compassionate grounds provided they had served in the Armed Forces for a period of at least 5 years.
(b) Jawans discharged on medical grounds.
(c) Members (i.e., Jawans) of Armed Forces posted to the General Engineering Reserve Forces.
(d) Ex-Servicemen who are now serving in the N.C.C.provided they had previously served in the Army during the emergency and put in 5 years service prior to their discharge and were not dismissed or discharged on adverse grounds.
B.S.O.3(3) deals with “Persons eligible for assignment”, which reads as follows:
“Only landless and poor persons who directly engage themselves in cultivation, including Harijans, Ex-Toddy Tappers, backward communities and weavers shall be eligible for assignment. Ex-Servicemen, Serving Soldiers (Jawans), Political Sufferers and Co-operative Societies consisting of entirely landless poor persons shall also be eligible for assignment according to the special procedure prescribed in paragraph 11.”
Thus, on a conjoint reading of the above Board Standing Orders, it would appear that the Ex-servicemen as also serving Soldiers (Jawans) are eligible for assignment of Government land. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents to the effect that assignment of land to the petitioner while he was in service, merits no appreciation.
Coming to the core issue that the petitioner, who served as a Border Security Force personnel, cannot be treated as Ex-serviceman and he is not eligible for assignment of Government land, Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.1560 dated 20.11.1975, on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are required to be considered. For better appreciation, the said Government Order is extracted hereunder:
ASSIGNMENT – LAND EXTENSION OF CONCESSIONS
GRANTED TO DEFENCE SERVICES PERSONNEL TO BORDER SECURITY FORCE PERSONNEL
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ABSTRACT
Assignment – Land Extension of concessions granted to Defence services personnel to Border Security Force Personnel – Orders – Issued
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue(B1) Department
G.O.Ms.No.1560
Dated 20-11-1975
Read the Following:-
1.
G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue, dated 30-4-1963
2.
From Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, D.O.Lr.No.11/9/72-G&O, dated 22-1-72.
3.
From General Administration (Pol-B) Department, U.O. Note No.1098/Poll-B/72-2, dated 6-5-72.
4.
From General Administration (Special-B) Department U.O.No. 254/Spl/75, dated 8-10-75.
ORDER:
The Government of India, Ministry of Home affairs, in their letter dated 22-1-1972 second read above have stated that the Boarder Security Force came into existence in December, 1965 and that its personnel were involved in many of the military operations along with the members of the Armed Forces of the country. They have further stated that the Border Security force personnel had been continuously engaged in strenuous duties all along the Bangla Desh Borders. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs therefore have been inter alia, requested the State Government to extend to the Border Security Force Personnel all the concessions that I have been announced by the State Government in respect of the members of the Revenue Forces of the country.
Government have carefully examined the matter. They direct that the concessions available to the Non-commissioned Officers of the Defence Services in the matter of assignment of agricultural lands as per G.O. first read above and provision of house sites as per G.O.Ms.No.965, Revenue, dt.5-6-63 and Government Memo No.484/Q2/68-22, Rev., dated 17-2-69 be extended to the Non-commissioned Officers of Border Security Force personnel also.
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)
V.Sundaresan,
Secretary to Government
The issuance of the said G.O., or the existence of the same, is not disputed by the respondents during the course of arguments.
Be that as it may. This Court, in the light of the undisputed factual position about the status of the petitioner, has no reason to take any other view, except that the subject matter land was assigned to him in the light of the above said Government Orders, by taking the services to the Nation rendered by him as Border Security Force personnel guarding the Borders of our country. At the peril of their lives, BSF personnel, like Defence Personnel stands for cause of the Nation, more particularly, protecting the Indo-Pakistan and Indo-Bangladesh Borders and combats insurgency. Looking to the underlying object of allotment/assignment of land to Border Security Force personnel as enunciated in the above said G.O., this Court see no distinction in the assignment made to Ex-Servicemen and Border Security Force personnel. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner, who was B.S.F., Constable is not eligible for assignment of Government Land, merits no appreciation and runs counter to the above mentioned G.O., and accordingly the same is rejected.
The other pleas raised in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent inter alia that the relevant procedure of publishing the list of applications in the Village was not followed and that the assignee is not in cultivation of the land assigned to him etc., deserves no consideration. No reasons are forthcoming as to why no action was taken for cancellation of the patta granted to the petitioner, if the procedure is not followed. It may be pertinent to note here that only after filing of the present Writ Petition, the 4th respondent-Tahsildar vide his report dated 22.07.2023 submitted to the 2nd respondent recommended for cancellation of the assignment in favour of the petitioner. It would appear that only on the basis of the report of the 4th respondent, the counter-affidavit was filed. Be that as it may.
It is curious to note that in his report, the 4th respondent stated that intensive search has been made in the office record room to trace connected assignment file and Assignment Committee Register, but the same were not traced. If that be the position, this Court is at loss to understand as to how it can be concluded that no procedure was followed while granting assignment of land in favour of the petitioner or the assignment was irregular. Therefore, the contentions raised with regard to irregular assignment deserves to be rejected.
At this juncture, it may be apposite to refer to the Circular instructions/Guidelines issued by the Chief Commissioner Land Administration (CCLA) dated 04.05.2022 with reference to the lands assigned to Ex-Servicemen/serving soldiers and deletion of such assigned lands from 22-A list. Instructions 4 & 5 of the said Circular, which are relevant in the present context reads as follows:
4.
Further in some cases, even though the assignee is an ex-serviceman and is in the physical possession of the land, in the absence of specific mention stating that the application is considered under exserviceman quota in the DR file, such cases could not be determined whether they can be considered under exserviceman or land less poor category.
Any land assignment to an exserviceman shall be treated not as assignment to a landless poor person, irrespective of what is stated in the DR file.
Hence, an ex-serviceman is entitled to sell land assigned to him, ten years after date of assignment, whatever the description in any revenue record.
5.
In some cases physical possession and exserviceman status are available along with other corroborative evidences, but the DR file is missing. Hence there is inability to take a decision in above cases.
When the ex-serviceman is in physical possession and when ex-serviceman status is available along with other corroborative evidences, but the DR file is missing, the assignee shall be treated as an ex-serviceman and shall be allowed to sell the land after ten years from the date of assignment.
These Circular instructions, in the considered opinion of this Court are applicable to the case on hand and the authorities concerned are required to follow them. In the light of the conclusions arrived at supra that the assignment of land in favour of the petitioner, is in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1560 dated 20.11.1975, this Court holds that the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993 as also subsequent Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.279 dated 04.07.2016.
Insofar as the deletion of subject matter property from the prohibited category list is concerned, in the light of said Circular instructions dated 04.05.2022 referred to supra, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders by taking the same into consideration, and delete the land in question from the prohibited category list, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous stand closed.