Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/5101/2015 of GUMMA PAPA RAO, Vs SECY., REVENUE DEPT., HYD., AND 6 OTHERS, on 30 December 2022
2015(WPMP. NO: 6796 OF 2015) THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 5101 OF 2015 (Or o O c Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may Guravaiah, aged about 56 years, Occ:
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESHATAMARAVATI(SpecialOriginalJurisdiction)/
/(OroVOc'Iff
FRIDAY,THETHIRTIETHDAYOFDECEMBERTWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THEHON’BLESMTJUSTICEV.SUJATHA
Between:
WRITPETITIONNO:5101OF2015
Guravaiah,agedabout56years,Occ:Coolie,R/oD.No.18-40-94,Sangadigunta,GunturMandal,GunturDistrict.
...PETITIONER
AND
1.TheStateofAndhraPradesh,Rep.byitsSecretary,RevenueDepartment,Secretariat,Hyderabad.Department,Secretariat,Hyderabad.
2.TheDistrictCollector,Guntur,GunturDistrict.
3.TheInspectorGeneralofStamps&RegistrationHyderabad
4.TheDistrictRegistrar,GunturGunturDistrict.
5.TheSub-Registrar,Guntur,GunturDistrict.
6.MadduluriMalaKondaiah,S/oKondaiah,Aged55yearsOccBusiness,R/oB-65,JubileeHillsJournalistColony,HyderabadBusiness,R/oB-65,JubileeHillsJournalistColony,Hyderabad 2^0Bhadruddin,Agedabout70years,R/oDNo18-40-96,PonnuruRoad,Guntur,GunturDistrict.
...RESPONDENTS
PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndiaprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtoissueanappropriateWrit,OrderorDirection,moreparticularlyoneinthenatureofWritofMandamus,todeclaretheactionoftherespondentNo.5inregisteringtheSaleDeedbearingDoc.No.3706/2013dt.23-3-2013presented-bythe6*^respondentinfavorsofthe7respondentinrespectofthepetitioner'shouseplotadmeasuring75Sq.Yds.,inT.S.No.773/1and781/9,WardNo.9,BlockNo.11situatedatSangadigunta,GunturMandal,GunturDistrict,(luringthependencyoftheregularizationproceedingsbeforetherevenueauthorities,asbeingillegal,arbitraryandunconstitutionalandconsequentlydirectthe5’”respondenttoforthwithcancelthesaledeedbearingDoc.No.3706/20dt.23.3.2013insofarastheabovesaidplotisconcerned,andtograntsuchotherrelieforreliefsasthisHon'bleCourtdeemsfitandproperinthecircumstancesofthecase.
I.A.NO:1OF2015(WPMP.NO:6796OF2015)
PetitionunderSection151CPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthewritpetition,theHighCourtmay HONOURABLESMT.JUSTICEV.SUJATHA
WRITPETITIONNo.5101of201S
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
ThepresentWritPetitioncametobefiledunder226oftheConstitutionofIndiaseekingthefollowingrelief:- cametobefiledunderArticle .toissueanappropriateWrit.OrderorDirection,moreparticularlyonemthenatureofWritofMandamus,todeclaretheactionoftherespondentNo.SmregisteringtheSaleDeedbearingDoc.No.3706/2013dt.23.3.2013presentedbytherespondentinfavoursofthe7<^respondentinrespectofthepetitioner’shousepintadmeasuring75Sq.Yds..inT.S.No.773/1and781/9.WardNo9.BlockNo.11situatedatSangadigunta.OunturMandal,GunturDistrict,duringthependencyoftheregularizationproceedingsbeforetherevenueauthorities,asbeingillegal,arbitraryandunconstitutionalandconsequentlydirecttheSi'respondenttoforthwithcancelthesaledeedbearingDoc.No.3706/20L3dt.23.3.2013insofarastheabovesaidplotisconcerned,andtograntsuchotherrelieforreliefsasthisHon’bleCourtdeemsfitandproperinthecircumstancesofthecase...
2. Thebrieffactsofthecasearethat,thepetitionerhasbeen inpeacefulpossessionand enjoymentofsmallhousesiteadmeasuring75Sq.yardsinT.S.No.773/1and781/9,WardNo.9,BlockNo.11,GunturDistrictsincemorethan30yearsbyerectingasmallthatchedhouse.Thereafter,thepetitioner’sthatchedhousewasguttedinafireaccidentassuchallhisarticlesweredamaged inthatfireaccident.Subsequently,thepetitionerhasreconstructedthethatchedhouseandresidingthere!indulypayingtherequisitetaxes.Subsequently,thepetitionerhasreconstructedthethatchedhouseandresidingthere!indulypayingtherequisitetaxes.
3. ItisfurthercaseofthepetitionerthattheRespondentNo.lissuedorderinG.O.Ms.No.508dated20.10.1995for regularizationofhousesitewhooccupiedtheGovernmentland.In
pursuanceofthesaidG.O.,thepetitionersubmittedanapplicationforregularizationofthehouseinhisoccupationandpossession.Accordingly,the4th4>i>respondentaddressedaletterinRc.No,1H6/Ddated31.12.2003to.theRevenueDivisionalOfficer,recommendingforregularizationofhishousesiteatfreeofcostintermsabovesaidG.O.Thereafter,theTahsildar,GunturissuednoticeinRc.No.107/2012-Ddated17.01.2014directingthepetitionertopayasumofRs.41,250/-towardsregularizationcharges.Thepetitionerisnotliabletopayanyregularizationcharges,buthowever,thepetitionerpaidanamountofRs.41,250/-bywayofchallanNo.70327dated17.01.2014inStateBankofIndia,Guntur.Thereafterthepetitionersubmittedawrittenrepresentationon31.01.2014beforetheTahsildar,dulyenclosingthecopyofthechallanwitharequesttoissueregularizationorders.Evenafterreceiptofregularizationcharges,therevenueauthoritiesneitherpassedanyordersnorregularizedhishousesite.AssuchthepetitionerapproachedthisHon’bleCourtandfiledW.P.No.34920of2014seekingadirectiontotheconcernedRevenueauthoritiestoissueregularizationordersandthesaidwritpetitionispendingforconsideration.
4. Thefurthercaseofthepetitioneristhat,duringpendencyoftheregularizationproceedings,thepetitionercametoknowthatthe6threspondent,whoisinpossessionoftheplotadjacenttohim,soldawayhisplotadmeasuring156Sq.yardsalongwith petitioner’splotadmeasuring75sq.yardsinfavourof7*respondent.On09.02.2015,7threspondentalongwithhishenchmencametothepetitioner’splotandmadeattemptstodispossesshimforcibly.Inthatconnection,therespondentNos.6and7havepresentedthedocumentbeforethe5threspondentandthereafterwithoutanyenquirythe5threspondentregisteredthedocumentvidesaledeedbearingNo.3706/2013dated23.03.2013.AggrievedbythesaidactionoftheRespondentNo.5,filedthiswritpetitiori.
5. Atthetimeofhearing,thelearnedAssistahtGovernmentPleaderforRevenuesubmitsthattheUsinthisWritpetitionissquarelycoveredbytheJudgmentreportedinHajiMohammedAhmedVs.StateofAndhraPradeshandothersiandPazalullahKhanV.StateofAndhraPradesh,rep.byitsDistrictRegistrarandothers^.
InHajiMohammedAhmedVs.StateofAndhraPradeshandothers(Supra),learnedSingleJudgeofthisCourtheldasfollows:
“77ieSupremeCourt,inThotaGangaLtixmiV.GovernmentofA.P.(l),heldthatifanysaledeedisrequiredtobecancelled,theonlyremedyisbywayofacivilsuitforcancellation,butnocancellationdeedcanbeunilaterallyexecutedorregistered.TheSupremeCourt, ‘2012(2)ALD23022012(2)ALT72822012(2)ALT728
i’
i’
I
afterreferringtoRule26(i)(k)oftheRegistrationRules,heldthatitisonlywhentheearliersaledeediscancelledbyacompetentcourtcanacancellationdeedheregisteredthattooafternoticetotheconcernedparties;andunilateralcancellationofthesaledeedaswellasregistrationthereof,werewhollyvoid,non-estandmeaningless.TheobservationoftheSupremeCourt,aforementioned,madeinthecontextofsaledeedswouldequallyapplytounilateralcancellationofgiftdeedsalso.,Unilateralcancellationofthegiftdeedinthepresentcasemusttherebeandisdeclaredtobevoid.ItismadeclearthatthisOrderwillnotprecludetherespondentfrominvokingthejurisdictionofthecompetentCivilCourt”forcancellationofthesubjectgiftdeed.
6. Inviewoftheaboveobservations,thisWritPetitionisclosedwithalibertytothepetitionertoapproachcompetentCivilCourt,forredressalofhisgrievance.Thereshallbenoorderastocosts.isclosedwithalibertytothepetitionertoapproachcompetentCivilCourt,forredressalofhisgrievance.Thereshallbenoorderastocosts.
Consequently,miscellaneouspetitionspending,ifany,shall alsostandclosed.
Sd/-S.SRINIVASAPRASADASSISTANTREGISTRAR^
//TRUECOPY//
SEiIONOFFICER
To,
££AdamAdvocate[OPUC]2.OneCCtoSri.KSMurthyAdvocate[OPUC]I’TwoC?Cop?esofAndhraPradesh.[OUT]
PV
8l