Land Assigned To Serving Soldiers Is Valid, Bureaucracy Cannot Defeat Gratitude: AP High Court Sets Aside Collector's Refusal To Permit Sale

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed an appeal of an ex-serviceman, who sought to sell land assigned to him under the ex-servicemen quota but was denied by the District Collector (DC) on the ground that the allotment was made while the appellant was serving in the Indian Army and was thus purportedly irregular.Referring to a 2022 Circular of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, which permitted applications for assignment of land to be made by serving soldiers also, a Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Subhendu Samanta held,“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.”Explaining the relevance of assigning land to ex-servicemen, the Division Bench observed,“The objective of assigning land to Ex-Servicemen is as a measure of demonstrating the gratitude of the nation to persons defending its borders and people. It is also, in a manner, an incentive for volunteers who serve, in the Armed Forces of India. Such an objective, cannot be whittled down, by bureaucratic procedure and officials raising a contention that serving members of the Armed Forces should not be assigned land.”Facts:The appellant was an ex-serviceman who served in the Indian Army as Subedar and was assigned a parcel of land in 2009 in Tirupathi District through a Patta given under the ex-servicemen quota.On the basis of multiple Government Orders which stated that an Ex-Servicemen— who has been assigned land, could sell the land after ten years from the date of assignment, the appellant sought to sell the parcel of land allotted to him in 2019. However, he was informed that the land had been placed under prohibitory list and no documents could be registered concerning the said land.Subsequent to a direction issued in 2019 in an earlier writ appeal, where the High Court had directed the respondents to consider the case of the appellant in accordance with law, the appellant moved an application in 2022 requesting the respondents to de-notify the land from the list of prohibitory properties. However, the DC rejected the application on the grounds that the said land is forest land and cannot be alienated. The DC relied on a report submitted by the Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer in which it was stated that— (i) the land had been assigned to the appellant while he was serving in the army and such an assignment was irregular as land could be assigned only to ex-servicemen, and (ii) that the land was classified as “Adavi Taka (UAW)”— which 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.Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court where a Single Judge relegated the appellant to the alternative remedy of an appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant challenged the Single Judge Order.It was the case of the appellant that the writ petition was maintainable on the ground that the said appeal is not a statutory appeal and that the DC had passed the impugned order without application of mind. Appellant submitted that the DC understood Adavi Taka to mean Adavi Poramboke (forest land to which provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 are applicable) and consequently concluded that granting of pattas in forest land was prohibited and as such the property would have to remain in the list of prohibitory properties. The report of the Tahlilsar, relied on by the DC, was obtained by the appellant through RTI Act and it specifically stated that the land was classified as Taka Adavi. Thus, it was submitted that the same cannot be treated as forest land.The State contended that the classification of the said land was Adavi Poramboke which would fall within the meaning of forest under the Forest Conversation Act.Thus, the Court had to determine— (i) whether serving members of Armed Forces could be assigned lands under the Ex-Servicemen quota, and (ii) the nature of the land assigned to the appellant.Court's Findings:With respect to the first issue, the Court held that no provision was placed to establish that serving members of the Armed Forces cannot be assigned land, and thus assignment of land to serving members cannot be treated as illegal or irregular. Holding that the patta granted to the appellant cannot be set aside on the ground that it was assigned while he was serving...

Land Assigned To Serving Soldiers Is Valid, Bureaucracy Cannot Defeat Gratitude: AP High Court Sets Aside Collector's Refusal To Permit Sale

Saahas Arora

Tags