WP/17843/2020 of DAGGUPATI RAJAMMA Vs THE STATE OF AP on 31 December 2024

ORDER:-

Heard Sri P.Sri Ramulu Naidu, learned counsel appearing for Ms. Palem Lakshmi Priya, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps.

2. Challenging the proceedings of the respondents in notifying the land of the petitioners, admeasuring Ac.0.79 cents in Sy.No.419/2 of Rajampet Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District, in the prohibitory list under Section 22 A (1) (a) of the Registration Act, 1908, the present writ petition is filed.

3. It is contended that the petitioners have inherited to the properties Sy.No.419/2 of Rajampet Revenue Village, Kadapa District, admeasuring Ac.0.79 cents. The Petitioner in support of her title, possession and continuous enjoyment of the properties, relies on the following documents:

i) The Register of Holdings (from 1914 to 1956).

ii) The Statement of Encumbrance on Property (from 01.01.1956 to 26.06.1980 and thereafter).

iii) And Adangals

4. It is contended that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject land having inherited to the same from their father. It is stated that the petitioners and their another sister have partitioned the properties inherited from their father in Sy.No.419/2, Sy.Nos.371/2, 375/2, 555 and also some other properties in Sy.Nos.418, 580 etc. Their names have been mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books have also been issued. And the subject property was also subjected to mortgage. It is contended that when the petitioners have proposed for sale of the subject properties, they have come to know of the impugned proceedings.

5. It is contended that the petitioners thereafter verified website and found the enlistment of her properties in prohibitory list under Section 22-A (1) (a) of the Registration Act, 1908. The 3[rd] respondent forwarded the list to the 6[th] and 7[th ]respondents prohibiting the registration and enlisting the properties under Section 22-A (1) (a) of the Registration Act, 1908.

The entire extent of property in the survey number is shown in the prohibitory list at Sl.Nos.168, as “assigned” and “A.W” respectively. It is contended that at Column No.8 meant for recording the reasons for prohibition, the “extent of land” is mentioned, viz,, Ac.2.57 cents, however, the entire extent in the survey number is not notified.

6. The counter affidavit of the 5[th ]respondent/Tahsildar, reflects that the lands of the petitioners in Sy.No.419/2 in an extent of Ac.0.79 cents as DKT. It is contended by the 5[th ]respondent that as per the Assigned Lands Register, the subject lands are assigned lands in the name of one Daggupati Kondaiah Naidu, who is the petitioner’s father. It is further contended that the petitioners have applied for updation in Re-settlement Register, and the Tahsildar has recommended for rejection, for the reason that the land was entered in the register of assigned lands. Since the land has been classified as Dotted lands in RSR and assigned land as per DKT register it is notified under prohibited list of properties under Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents have not filed any proceedings granting D-Form pattas, in respect of the subject lands, either in favour of the petitioner or any one else to contend that the subject lands are assigned lands. The counter affidavit does not state anything with regard to the said documents except saying as assigned lands, without filing any proof, would establish that the respondents assertion is without any material. It is further contended as per RH(1914-1956), the lands are pattalands of the father of the petitioner. He thus contends that the proceedings of the respondents notifying the subject lands under Section 22-A (1) (A) of the Registration Act,1908, is contrary to the principle laid down by the Full Bench decision of the erstwhile composite High Court of Judicature for the state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others[1], in as much as it does not specify the reasons for prohibition, the only reason was classification of the land as A.W.

8. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contends that the lands are assigned lands and the petitioners without availing the alternative remedy provided under the provisions of Section 22-A (1) A (4) of the Registration Act, 1908, have approached the Court.

9. Considered the rival submissions. The Full Bench decision in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary, on the subject issue is as under:

“In so far as clause (a) is concerned, the concerned District Collectors shall also indicate the statute under which a transaction and its registration is prohibited. Further in respect of the properties covered under clause (b), they shall clearly indicate which of the Governments own the property.”

10. The Division Bench in the same case disposing of the writ appeals in terms of the Full Bench decision observed as under:

“The competent authority shall prepare the list of assigned lands with the condition of non-alienability and forward the list to Sub-Registrar/Registering Authority under the AP. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short "Act 1977"). The petitioners who claim to have lands assigned prior to 1954 without the condition of non-alienability are given liberty to place details of assignment and decisions of this Court on the applicability of "Act 1977" to such assignment, for updating and operating the prohibitory list by these authorities under Section 22-A of the Act.”

11. As noted from the impugned proceedings the column relating to name of the owner is mentioned as “Government” and the column relating to reasons for prohibition is mentioned as “AW”. The entire Sy.No.419 is categorized as A.W,. From the same, it appears that the respondents have not conducted any enquiry while including the subject lands under the list of prohibitory list. As observed by the Division Bench referred supra, if the appropriate authority is desirous of including the land as assigned prior to 1954, the same has to be by way of a notification under Section 22-A (1) (e) of the Registration Act, 1908. In that view of the matter, as observed above, the authority in respect of Sy.No.419 did not specify, if the land covered under the said survey number would fall under the category of assigned lands. Government has also issued G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018 to delete the lands assigned prior to 1954 from the purview of Section 22-A of the Registration Act,1908. The petitioners through the material placed before the Court have attempted to establish that the lands are patta lands of their father. The RH of the period 1914-1956, annexed to the writ petition contains the petitioner’s name. The respondents except to say that the subject lands are assigned lands did not dispute the title demonstrated by the petitioners. In view of the above, the proceedings placing the properties under prohibitory category from alienation is not sustainable as the same does not appear to be supported by any enquiry being conducted nor does it appear to have been made after verification of revenue records, in as much as the authorities have failed to show as to in whose favour the lands were assigned. The decision thus arrived at by the authorities is not in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench and is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the same is accordingly set aside as far as it relates to the subject lands of the petitioners are concerned.

12. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order passed under Section 22-A (1) (a) of the Registration Act,1908, in so far as it relates to the subject land in Ac.0.79 cents in Sy.No.419/2 of Rajampet Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District. The authorities are directed to entertain the documents submitted for registration in respect of the subject land and process the same, if the same is otherwise in order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

Date:31.12.2024

ANI

____________________________________

JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

476 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION No.17843 of 2020

Date:31.12.2024

ANI