WP/36344/2012 of L.Srinivasa Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2012

Order:

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus todeclare the action of respondent No.3, in keeping thetwo sale deeds presented by the petitioners forregistration on 08-06-2011 and 23-06-2011 pending, asillegal and arbitrary.

The brief facts leading to the filing of this WritPetition are that the petitioners claim to be the owners ofthe land in RS.No.401/5 (Sy.No.314 Part) admeasuringAcs.7-00 of Kapuluppa Village, BheemunipatnamMandal, Visakhapatnam District. It is their pleaded casethat they have purchased the said property from thesuccessors of the persons, who had been inpossession thereof from 1904. By proceeding inS.R.No.11(a) 4/10/VSP, dated 05-02-2011, the JointCollector, Visakhapatnam District, granted ryotwari pattaunder Section 11 (a) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948,in favour of the petitioners. When the petitioners soughtto sell the said property and presented two sale deeds executed in respect thereof on the dates mentionedabove, respondent No.3 has received the same andkept the same pending. Despite the petitioners’representations, dated 10-08-2011 and 20-09-2011, made to respondentNos.3 and 4 respectively, the said documents have notbeen released. The petitioners have, therefore, filedthis Writ Petition.

A counter-affidavit has been filed byrespondent No.3 wherein it is inter alia stated that sincethere is a dispute relating to the title of the petitioners,the revenue authorities have informed them that theproperty shall not be registered. Along with the counter-affidavit, respondent No.3 has filed Order, dated 23-08-2012, of the Chief Commissioner of LandAdministration, whereunder he has set aside theRyotwari patta granted by the Joint Collector in favour ofthe petitioners on 05-02-2011.

Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (forshort ‘the Act’), contains prohibition on registration ofdocuments relating to certain properties. Under Clause(b) of Sub-Section (1) thereof, the documents relating totransfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale,gift, exchange or lease in respect of immovable propertyowned by the State or Central Government, executedby persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so are prohibited from registration. Evidently, therevenue authorities informed respondent No.3 that asthe subject property belongs to the State Government,the documents relating thereto shall not be registered.

At the hearing, the learned Senior Counselsubmitted that under Section 71 of the Act, respondentNo.3 is bound to pass an order, if he has reasons torefuse registration and communicate the same to thepetitioners. He has, therefore, requested thatrespondent No.3 may be directed to pass anappropriate order under Section 71 of the Act, so that ifthe petitioners feel aggrieved thereby, they can carrythe matter in appeal under Section 72 of the Act.

In the light of the submission made by the learnedSenior Counsel as noted above, this Court feels that it isappropriate to direct respondent No.3 to pass an order,if he has reasons to refuse registration in respect of theproperty in question, and communicate the same to thepetitioners within one week from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. If the petitioners feel aggrieved bysuch Order, they shall be free to avail the remedy ofappeal under Section 72 of the Act.

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition isdisposed of.

As a sequel, WPMP.No.46159 of 2012, filed bythe petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

31[st] December, 2012 lur

______________________

(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)