WP/28044/2005 of Madhusudhan Reddy, Vs The District Collector, on 30 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioner questions the circular dated 6.2.2001 issued by theJoint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, informing all the Sub Registrarsin the District not to entertain any documents for registration of landsfor agricultural or non-agricultural purposes without prior approval orno objection certificate from the District Collector, as illegal andarbitrary.

The petitioner submits that he has purchased open land to the extentof 320 sq.yards, Plot No.35 in Survey No.227/1 situated atBahadurpally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy Districtand the same was duly registered in his favour vide DocumentNo.4664 of 2005. The petitioner intends to sell the said land toprospective purchasers who paid considerable amount and when thepetitioner approached the 3[rd] respondent for registration of the land infavour of prospective purchasers, he refused to register the saledeeds on account of the impugned circular.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and admittedto by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the subjectmatter of this writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of thisCourt in W.P.No.1953 of 2002, dt.11.12.2003. In the circumstances,following the said judgment, this writ petition is disposed of in thefollowing terms.

In the impugned circular, the Joint Collector took exception to theissuance of no objection certificate by the Mandal Revenue Officersand he ultimately directed the Mandal Revenue Officers not to issueany no objection certificate for registration purpose or otherwise inrespect of lands in the district without prior approval of the DistrictCollector. A direction was also issued to all the Sub-Registrars not toentertain any documents for registration of lands in the district withoutprior approval or in the absence of no objection certificate from theDistrict Collector. In a way the circular brings all the transactions inrespect of lands in the district to halt. For such an exercise, therespondents must have specific power under any relevant statute.The circular has no reference to any provision of law under which it isissued.

As long as any person holds title to the property, the respondents donot have any power or jurisdiction to prevent the same from beingtransferred. It is not as if there is no provision of law to protect theproperties of the Government. In case, any individual is found to be inpossession of government land, the Andhra Pradesh LandEncroachment Act enables the revenue authorities to evict thepersons in unauthorized occupation. Similarly, proceedings can beinitiated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing(Prohibition) Act where a person is found to be in possession ofgovernment land without legal entitlement. The Joint Collector haschosen the course of action, which is not permissible in law.

The Registration Act does contain a provision enabling the government to prohibit transfer in respect of any lands. Suchprohibition, however, is to be imposed by issuing a notification underSection 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908. The Government has notchosen to issue a notification under that provision in respect of landsheld by the petitioner. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not findany basis for the impugned order. The Division Bench of this Court inits judgment dated 10.9.2001 in W.A.No.1390 of 2001 took exceptionto such an exercise.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and theimpugned order is set aside. Accordingly, the 3[rd] respondent isdirected to register the sale deeds executed by the petitioner infavour of the prospective purchasers in accordance with law. Noorder as to costs.

________________

(V.ESWARAIAH, J.)

30.12.2005

kpr