WP/31524/2016 of Vankayalapati Sreenivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal on 31 December 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- …to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Notification under Section 21-A (1) (e) of the Registration Act 1908 through the G.O.Ms.No.215 Revenue (ASSN-I) Department dated 13.05.2016 issued by the respondent No.1 prohibiting the registration of the land in an extent of Ac. 2.78 cents in Sy. No. 715 of Basinikonda-1 Revenue Village Madanapalli Mandal Chittoor District belong to the petitioner without there being any reason whatsoever and full descriptive particulars of the same and seeking to set aside the same in respect of it relates to the land in an extent of Ac. 2.78 cents in Sy. No. 715 of Basinikonda1 Revenue Village Madanapalli Mandal Chittoor District by declaring it as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power contrary to the provisions of Section 22-A (1) (e) and 22-A (2) of the Registration Act 1908 and the guidelines framed through G.O.Ms.No. 1248 Revenue (Reg.l) Department dated 26.09.2007 and the settled principles of legal position laid down by this Honble Court in case of Vinjamuri Rajagopalachary Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order”

2. The case of the petitioner is that land to an extent of Ac.2-78 cents in Sy. No.715 of Basinikonda-1 Revenue village, Madanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District originally belongs to one Atluri Pedda Chenganna and the same was in his possession till his demise. After his demise, the same was devolved on Atluri Lingappa and he was in possession and enjoyment till his demise in the year 2000. After demise of said Lingappa, the subject land devolved on his grandson Atluri Shankara and he was issued pattadar pass book and title deeds. Said Shankara settled the property in favour of the petitioner’s vendors through registered settlement deed No. 6393 of 2014.

3. The case of the petitioner is that 5[th] respondent refused to entertain the sale deed presented for registration of the subject land, and therefore, said Shankara filed Writ Petition No. 21836 of 2012 before this Court and the same was disposed of by order dated 16.07.2012 giving liberty to the petitioners therein to make representation for deletion of subject land from the government lands list. Basing on the orders, said Shankara executed settlement deed in favour of petitioner’s vendors. The petitioner purchased the same through registered sale deed vide document No. 7124 of 2014. The petitioner also filed Writ Petition No. 10656 of 2015 for issuance of pattaadar pass books and title deeds and the same was disposed of by this court by order dated 16-04-2015. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner’s name was mutated in revenue records and he was issued pattadar passbook and title deed for the subject land. When the petitioner intended to sell the same in favour of 3[rd] parties, the 5[th] respondent informed about prohibiting registration of the subject land and the impugned notification issued under Section 22-A (1) ( e) of the Registration Act, through G.O.Ms.No.215 Revenue (ASSN.I) Department Dated 13-05-2016. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. The Writ Petition No. 10656 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.21386 of 2012 were already disposed of, but that is not a ground for inclusion of the property in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A. Though the Writ Petitions were disposed of and the property though not fall within the prohibited properties permitted under Section 22- (a) to (c), still the property is included in the prohibited property list, on the pretext that Writ Petitions are pending, which is illegal and arbitrary and prayed to issue a direction.

5. The respondents filed counter admitting about the inclusion of the property in the prohibited property list due to pendency of the two Writ Petitions referred to above and supported the action of the 1[st] respondent/District Collector in issuing under 22-A (1)(e ) of Registration Act under G.O.Ms. No. 215 dated 13.05.2016 and list of prohibited properties for Registration Act annexed to the counter and sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

6. During hearing, while reiterating the contentions in the Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri drawn the attention of this Court with regard to the disposal of the Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 10656 of 2015 and 21836 of 2012 long back and even otherwise, pendency of Writ Petition is not a ground to include the property in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A (1) (e ) of the Registration Act and the very issuance of G.O is illegal and contrary to 22-A (1) (e ) of Registration Act and requested to issue a direction as prayed in this Writ Petition.

7. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that to delete the properties included in the prohibitory property list, he has to make appropriate representation through Mee-seva on payment of requisite fee, with a request to delete the property from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A (1) of A.P Registration Act while requesting to dismiss the Writ Petition by granting liberty as stated above.

8. It is no doubt true that the property was originally belongs to Atluri Peda Chengappa and later it was succeeded by Shankara, who in turn executed the settlement deed after obtaining an order from the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No.21836 of 2012 dated 17.07.2012. Later, the property was purchased by this petitioner under registered sale deed bearing document No. 7124 of 2014 dated 11.12.2014 When the petitioner intend to sell the property to the 3[rd] parties, the 5[th] respondent refused to receive the document on the ground that it is included in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A (1)( e) of Registration Act. The peculiar/strange reason is mentioned in the last column of the Table of properties annexed to the G.O i.e., prohibiting registration of the properties is in view of pendency of W.P.No. 10656 of 2015 and WP. No. 21386 of 2012. In fact, these two WPs were disposed of long back and copies of the orders are placed on record (dated 16.12.2012 and 16.04.2015). When the Writ Petitions are disposed of, inclusion of the property in the prohibited property list and issue of notification vide G.O.Ms.No. 215 dated 13.05.2005 does not arise. Inclusion of the property on the ground that the writ petitions are pending, in the prohibitory property list is ex facieillegal.

9. Even according to Section 22 –A (1), the specific properties enumerated under said Section are prohibited from registration. For better appreciation of law under Section 22-A (1) (e ) is extracted herein:

“22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain documents.– (1)The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namely: 22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain documents.– (1)The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namely:

(a) documents relating to transfer of immoveable property, the alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the State or Central Government; property, the alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the State or Central Government; (b) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of immoveable property owned by the State or Central Government, executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so;

(c) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten) 10 years in respect of immoveable property, owned by Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or by Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995 executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so; (d) agricultural or urban lands declared as surplus under the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 or the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976; (e) any document or class of documents pertaining to the properties the State Government may, by notification prohibit the registration in which avowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal, Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others which are likely to adversely affect those interests.”

10. But, none of the clauses in the Sub Sections says pendency of the Writ Petitions is a ground to include the property in the prohibited property list for registration. Obviously, the reasons best known to the 1[st] respondent for inclusion of the property in the prohibited property list for registration and notified vide G.O.Ms.No.215 dated 13.05.2005. Such Notification including the property in the prohibitory property list is contrary to Section 22-A (1) of Registration Act. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside so far as it relates to property to an extent of Ac.2-78 cents in Sy. No.715 of Basinikonda-1 Revenue village, Madanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District.

11. One of the contentions raised before this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue is that the remedy is available to make a representation to the concerned authority through Mee seva for deletion of the property from the prohibited property list. That is not a ground to reject the Writ Petition on account of availability of efficacious remedy by way of representation for the simple reason that the very inclusion of the property in the prohibited property list is based on a strange reason and it is unfounded, since the Writ Petitions were already disposed of on two different dates as stated above. Therefore, in those circumstances, the parties cannot be compelled to turn around the office by submitting representation for deletion of the property from the prohibitory property list for registration. Hence, I find it is not a ground to reject the relief claimed in this petition by the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected.

12. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that it is a fit case to issue writ of mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No. 215 Revenue (ASSN.I) Department dated 13-06-13.05.2016 so far as it relates to property i.e., Ac.2-78 cents in Sy. No.715 of Basinikonda-1 Revenue village, Madanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District and consequently the respondents are directed to receive and register the document if it is otherwise satisfying mandatory requirements under Stamps and Registration Act, on its presentation, within fifteen (15) days. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

Date: 31.12.2021 psr

_________________________________________

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

129

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

(Disposed of)

WRIT PETITION No.31524 of 2016

Date: 31-12-2021

psr