WP/38844/2013 of Sri Cochi Krishna Rao, Vs The State of A.P. on 31 December 2013

ORDER:

Petitioners aver that originally the predecessor ofpetitioners 1 to 3 by name Smt. Venkatamma belonging to Cochifamily was the absolute owner and possessor of the land to anextent of Ac. 174.75 cents of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, ChitoorDistrict. The same is confirmed by the order of InamCommissioner, dated 04.07.1883, in the Title Deed No.2597 andthe same is even recorded in Inam Fair Register. The Cochifamily sold half of its property and leased out remaining propertyto one Bugga Mutt, Tirupathi, through registered documents. Thesame is recorded in Survey, Settlement Register. Bugga Muttsold half of its property through registered sale deed withdocument No.985 of 1884, dated 19.12.1884, to Hathiramji Mutt,Tirupathi (5[th] respondent). The petitioners further aver that the other halfshare which is taken on lease was given in lease by Bugga Mutt tothe Hathiramji Mutt through registered sale deed with documentNo.986 of 1884, dated 19.12.1884. During subsistence of thelease, though not authorized, Hathiramji Mutt has given theselands in lease to many people. The petitioners aver that they arethe members of the 4[th] petitioner association being middle class families having migrated from nearby villages to the Town,purchased small plots of land in Sy.Nos.13, 15, 17/2, 17/3 and17/5. Many of them have already constructed houses and alsoresiding in the said houses. They have been granted electricityconnections and water connections, drainage connections, roadsare laid out and the property has mostly become urban property. When the Department of Endowments sought to evict themembers of the 4[th] petitioner association without following dueprocess of law, the petitioners approached this Court and filedW.P.No.32112 of 2011 wherein, this Court directed therespondents not to evict the petitioners therein and also furtherdirected to make a representation to the 2[nd] respondent toconsider the cases of the petitioners therein. In view of the abovecircumstances, the members of the association formed into the 4[th]petitioner association to avoid common causes of protecting theirdwelling houses having purchased the property by payment ofhuge considerations and invested huge amounts in construction ofhouses. Petitioners aver that Hathiramji Mutt (5[th] respondent) isthe owner of the property to an extent of only half out of Ac. 174.75 cents and the rest of the land being belonging to thepetitioners 1 to 3 have decided to purchase the said land from theowners to avoid future complications though they were forced topay consideration for the same once again. The owners haveentered into an Agreement of Sale, dated 05.01.2012, with thepetitioners 1 to 3 to purchase an extent of Ac. 25.00 cents inSurvey Nos.13, 15, 17/2, 17/3 and 17/5 of Avilala Village in whichthe residential structures are existing.

2. The 4[th] petitioner got executed a sale deed, dated11.12.2013, on payment of balance consideration to petitioners 1 to 3 and approached the office of the Sub-Registrar, RuralTirupathi, Chittoor District (4[th] respondent) for registration of thesaid document. He informed that the said property is theendowment property as communicated in letter, dated 19.04.2010,by the Commissioner of Endowments and, therefore, cannot beentertained for registration. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition isinstituted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that nonotification was issued by the Government treating the saidproperty as endowment property in exercise of power underSection 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act’),and in the absence of such notification, registration authoritiescannot refuse to entertain the documents. He submits that theproperty claimed is not the property owned by Endowment trust. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioners reliedon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.10068 of 2013, dated03.06.2013.

4. In W.P.No.10068 of 2013, this Court held that in theabsence of a notification under Section 22-A(2) of the Act, it is notopen to the Endowments Department to communicate a list ofproperties allegedly owned by the religious institutions by way of aletter and trace the power to do so to Section 22-A(1)(c) of theAct. This Court declared that communication, dated 19.04.2010,addressed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh,to various Registration Authorities, is not sustainable. The learnedGovernment Pleader does not dispute the assertion of thepetitioner that there is no notification issued under Section 22-A(2)of the Act.

5. For the reasons alike, the Writ Petition is allowed, directingthe Sub-Registrar, Rural Tirupathi, Chitoor District (4[th]respondent) to receive and process the document presented bythe 4[th] petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of Ac. 25.00cents in Sy.Nos.13, 15, 17/2, 17/3 and 17/5 of Avilala Village,Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, without reference to letterR.C.No.N1/27520/2009, dated 19.04.2010, of the Commissioner ofEndowments. In the event the document presented is found tofulfill the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the IndianStamp Act, 1899, the 4[th] respondent shall complete theregistration formalities and release the document in accordancewith the due procedure. If however, the 4[th] respondent is of theopinion that the document presented for registration warrantsdenial, he shall pass orders in writing indicating the reasons forsuch refusal and communicate the same to the party inaccordance with Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. Thereshall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any,pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

_________________

P.NAVEEN RAO, J

Date: 2[nd] January, 2014

KL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

KL

Date: 2[nd ]January, 2014