The Andhra Pradesh High Court has pulled up revenue authorities for adopting an "arm twisting method" to deny and delay relief to an 80-year-old ex-serviceman, while directing them to remove his land from the prohibited properties list and grant consequential reliefs within two months. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 104]

Justice B. Krishna Mohan observed:

"It is a classic case of adopting arm twisting method by the respondent authorities concerned to deny and delay the relief sought by the petitioner by protracting the litigation on one count or the other and unless quietus is shown to this lis, justice will not be met and the individual would suffer an irreparable loss and hardship.”

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by an octogenarian ex-serviceman from Visakhapatnam, seeking implementation of government orders directing deletion of his five-acre land from the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.

Under G.O.Ms. No. 279, lands assigned to ex-servicemen and freedom fighters are exempted from obtaining a No Objection Certificate after ten years where there is no dispute with the Government, and such lands are liable to be deleted from the prohibitory list.

The petitioner submitted that he had been assigned the land in 1979 under a D-Form patta as an ex-serviceman, but the assignment was unilaterally cancelled in 2002. The cancellation was subsequently set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer in 2016 on finding that no show-cause notice had been issued and no breach of assignment conditions had been proved. Despite subsequent government memos issued in 2019 and 2024 directing deletion of the land from the prohibitory list, the authorities failed to implement the directions, thereby preventing the octogenarian from dealing with his property.

The State opposed the plea by referring to pending proceedings arising out of claims made by a rival claimant over the same property.

Examining the record, the High Court noted that the rival claimant's D-Form patta had already been found to be fake and fabricated by the authorities and that criminal proceedings had also been initiated in that regard. The Court held that there was no genuine dispute regarding the petitioner's assignment or entitlement.

The Court noted that the Government had directed the authorities to delete the land from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, update the revenue records in the petitioner's name, and restore possession of the land.

It also noted that the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) had recommended consideration of the petitioner's case and withdrawal of the land from the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA). The Court held that the authorities could not ignore these directions, along with the earlier High Court order, particularly when the petitioner's patta and entitlement stood conclusively established.

Emphasising the authorities' obligation to act fairly and honour binding orders, the Court observed:

“But when the de-notification orders have been consistently issued in favour of the petitioner by the government, 23 through its Memos, and this Court in the year 2020, directed to delete the subject property from the prohibitory list under section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 in favour of the petitioner, the respondent authorities concerned ought to have acted fairly in restoring the relief of the petitioner. The respondents ought to have seen that the petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman belonging to an octogenarian group and continues to receive the benefits till date, which itself sufficiently establishes his identity, existence and entitlement.”

The High Court also referred to a 2022 clarification issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration stating that ex-servicemen assigned land are free to alienate it after ten years, provided the assignment is genuine and the assignee is indeed an ex-serviceman.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to implement the government memos by deleting the land from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and granting all consequential reliefs within two months.

Case Title: M. Appa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 2018 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 104

Counsel for the Petitioner: Pillix Law Firm

Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP for Registration and Stamps

Click Here To Read/Download Order