Allowed

Vankara Lakshumma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Feb 2020WP/1680/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court held that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide title disputes and cannot prohibit registration. The Sub-Registrar is bound to register the document and must provide reasons for refusal under Section 71 of the Registration Act, ignoring unauthorized instructions from the Tahsildar.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed, inaction of Sub-Registrar declared illegal, directing him to receive, process, and register the sale deed.

Vankara Lakshumma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No. 1680 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

One Vankara Lakshumma, r/o Chirrajupalli Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the inaction of the second respondent in registering the sale deed of the petitioner dated 16.12.2019 presented before him for registration on the same date, basing on an incomprehensible and illegal letter of the third respondent date 09.12.2019, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act and also violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the second respondent to register the petitioner’s sale deed dated 16.12.2019 and release the same, in accordance with law.

¶4

It is the case that, the petitioner approached the second respondent/Sub-Registrar along with the purchaser of immovable property to get the sale deed registered on 16.12.2020, paid requisite registration fee vide Challan No.31265046522019, as it is compulsory registerable document. The second respondent/SubRegistrar refused to register the sale deed on 16.12.2020 without providing any reason for refusal, as mandated under Section 71 of the Registration Act and till date, the second respondent/SubRegistrar did not formally inform the petitioner the reason for refusal to register the sale deed dated 16.12.2019. On 07.01.2020, the second respondent addressed a letter bearing No.G1/B/2020 to the petitioner, referring a letter of the third respondent/Tasildar, Tonduru i.e. Letter No.B/478/2019 dated 09.12.2019 stating that

¶5

MSM,J

¶6

¶7

the third respondent/Tahsildar directed the second respondent/SubRegistrar not to register the document, asking the petitioner to approach the third respondent/Tahsildar, Tonduru Mandal to rectify the Adangal. The second respondent/Sub-Registrar enclosed a copy of the letter from third respondent/Tahsildar of Tonduru along with his letter dated 07.01.2020, the contents of the letter is incomprehensible and simply it states that there is an excess extent of Ac.0-29 cents land in Sy.Nos.979/1,2,3,4,5,6,7. The letter of the third respondent/Tahsildar, Thondur Mandal does not disclose any supporting evidence and does contain as to under what provision of law or rule, the third respondent/Tahsildar issued such a letter to the second respondent/Sub-Registrar. Therefore, based on the letter of the third respondent/Tahsildar, the second respondent/SubRegistrar did not register the document. Thereupon, the petitioner addressed a letter to the second respondent/Sub-Registrar which was posted on 11.01.2020 and the same was delivered on 13.01.2020 requesting him to register the petitioner’s sale deed dated 16.12.2020 and to conclude collection of registration fees which was paid by a challan for the purpose of registration. But, till date, no action was taken either by the second respondent/Sub-Registrar or by the third respondent/Tahsildar, but stopped registration of the document solely on the basis of the letter addressed by the third respondent/Tahsildar to the second respondent/Sub-Registrar. The action of the second respondent/Sub-Registrar is illegal and arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Registration Act and based on the letter addressed by the third respondent/Tahsildar, the second respondent/Sub-Registrar refused to register the document is contrary to the settled law and requested to set-aside the same, while declaring the action of the second respondent/Sub-Registrar as

¶8

MSM,J

¶9

¶10

illegal and direct the second respondent/Sub-Registrar to register and release the document.

¶11

During hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration placed on record the written instruction dated 28.01.2020 received by him duly signed by the third respondent/Tahsildar, Thondur. The letter disclosed the details of the disputes between the petitioner and her sons, filing of an application for cancellation of pattadar passbook and issue of pattadar passbooks in favour of son of the petitioner and the petitioner finally requested not to issue pattadar passbooks pertaining to the above lands to anybody and not to measure the fields until her claim is justified. Inspite of the above letter, the second respondent/Sub-Registrar has been addressed to stop registration of the schedule land until further intimation vide office letter of the third respondent/Tahsildar vide Ref.No.BB/478/2019 dated 09.12.2019.

¶12

It is also contended that the schedule land is classified as Patta Lands as per RSR and as per records, the above land is on the name of Smt. Thallapalli Ramulamma. As she has taken some debt amount from Smt. Vankara Lakshumma w/o Venkata Ramana, during settlement of debt, Smt. Thallapalle Ramulamma, Smt. Vankara Lakshumma has convinced the debtor to execute sale agreement to sell the schedule land in her name. For that, Smt. Ramulamma agreed and went to Pulivendula to execute agreement to sell without knowledge to her son and signed on the stamped papers which were prepared in the Sub-Registrar’s office, Pulivendula without knowing the facts that Smt. Vankara Lakshumma has misleaded the debtor Ramulamma and got signatures on the stamped papers fraudulently.

¶13

MSM,J

¶14

¶15

After knowing the facts regarding registration of schedule land, Sri Thallapalli Ramanjaneyulu s/o Ramulamma submitted a petition to the Tahsildar, Thonduru objecting for registration of the schedule land by his mother to Smt. Vankara Lakshumma fraudulently. Based on the petition of Sri Tallapalli Ramanjaneyulu, enquiry was conducted and connected records were perused pertaining to the land. Since the land was classified as Patta Lands, an endorsement was issued to the petitioner i.e. Smt. Vankara Lakshumma, directing her to approach the Civil Court for redressal of her grievance in the Court, until then the said land has been kept in dispute Register vide office letter Ref.B/37/2019 dated 20.01.2020. Therefore, the third respondent/Tahsildar addressed a letter to the second respondent/Sub-Registrar not to register the sale deed, since the land is kept in “Dispute Register” and requested not to register the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the third party/purchaser. On the basis of the said letter issued by the third respondent/Tahsildar, the second respondent/Sub-Registrar refused to register the document.

¶16

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Y. Siva Prasad contended that, the question of maintaining ‘disputed register’ by the third respondent/Tahsildar is not prescribed under any law and therefore, maintaining the disputed land register is without any action. Even if, there is no dispute, it is for the parties to get their disputes redressed by the competent Court and the third respondent/Tahsildar has nothing to do with the disputes between two private individuals. Addressing letter by the third respondent/Tahsildar to the second respondent/Sub-Registrar directing him not to register the sale deed for different reasons, is

¶17

MSM,J

¶18

¶19

illegal under law and requested to declare the inaction of the second respondent/Sub-Registrar as illegal and arbitrary and issue a direction to the second respondent to receive, register and release the document of conveyance presented by this petitioner.

¶20

Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration contended that, when the land is kept in ‘disputed land register’, the same cannot be registered, in view of the disputes pending between two individuals. In those circumstances only, the third respondent/Tahsildar addressed a letter to the second respondent/Sub-Registrar, narrating the facts and directed him not to register the document presented for registration by the petitioner. Therefore, there is any amount of justification in the letter addressed by the third respondent/Tahsildar to the second respondent/SubRegistrar. Consequently, the action of the second respondent/SubRegistrar cannot be declared as illegal and arbitrary and no direction can be issued, since there is a clear dispute as to the transfer of land between Smt. Thallapalle Ramulamma, Smt. Vankara Lakshumma.

¶21

Undoubtedly, as per the instructions placed on record, there are disputes between the petitioner and Smt. Vankara Lakshumma and her sons with regard to transfer of property by executing deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner by Thallapalli Ramulamma and the said sale deed was challenged on the ground that it was obtained by fraudulent means and submitted applications to the third respondent/Tahsildar for issuing new pattadar passbooks by canceling the pattadar passbooks issued in the name of this petitioner and not to issue any pattadar passbooks in the name of any third party. In such case, the jurisdiction of the third respondent/Tahsildar is limited under the provisions of Andhra

¶22

MSM,J

¶23

¶24

Pradesh (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the third respondent/Tahsildar has to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 5(1) & (3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rules 15, 16 & 17 of the Andhra Pradesh (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Books Rules framed under the said Act. Instead of following the procedure, the third respondent/Tahsildar made an enquiry on his own and concluded that there is fraud in obtaining the registered sale deed from Ramulamma to this petitioner. According to the law, the third respondent/Tahsildar is not competent to decide about the fraud allegedly played by this petitioner against Ramulamma in obtaining registered sale deed and cannot decide the title to the property of the parties in view of the law declared by the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Smt. Jayamma and others v. State of Karnataka¹ , wherein it was held that, t he revenue authorities viz., the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between the parties in respect of the immoveable property/properties. It is the exclusive domain of the competent Civil Court to adjudicate the dispute/title in respect of the immoveable property/properties and ultimately if any decree to be passed by the competent Civil Court will be binding on the parties as well as the revenue authorities in the State.

¶25

Even otherwise, when an application to issue pattadar passbook by Vankara Lakshumma, notice to the petitioner whose name is entered and whose rights are likely to be affected shall be

¶26

1 Writ Petition No. 6872/2013(KLR) dated 24.01.2020

¶27

MSM,J

¶28

¶29

issued. (vide Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer,

¶30

Serilingampally Mandal and others² ).

¶31

Similarly, addressing a letter by the third respondent/ Tahsildar to the second respondent/Sub-Registrar not to register the sale deed and the second respondent/Sub-Registrar acting upon the letter and refusing to register the sale deed is a matter of serious concern. The letter addressed by the third respondent/Tahsildar to the second respondent/Sub-Registrar is extracted hereunder for better appreciation of the case:

¶32

REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶33

From To Sri N. Venkata Subbaiah, B.Com The Sub Registrar Tahsildar, Pulivendula Thondur Mandal

¶34

Ref.No.B/478/2019 dated 09.12.2019

¶35

Sir,

¶36

Sub:- LANDS – Thondur mandal – Mallela Village – Sy.Nos.979/1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Total Extent 11.10 cents – to Stop the Registration in these sy.nos – requested – regarding.

¶37

I submit that in Thondur Mandal, Mallela Village Sy.No.979/1, 979/2, 979/3, 979/4, 979/5, 979/6, 979/7 Total Extent 10.90. but Online Webland Adangal Extent 11.19, excess extent is 0.29 cents. Hence the excess extent after clear in the Sy. Numbers and got to any transactions to give further intimation.

¶38

Yours faithfully

¶39

Tahsildar Thondur Mandal Y.S.R. District, A.P

¶40

The letter does not convey any meaning, except stating that in Thondur Mandal, Mallela Village, Sy.Nos.979/1, 979/2, 979/3,

¶41

2 AIR 2008 ANDHRA PRADESH 15 (F.B)

¶42

MSM,J

¶43

¶44

979/4, 979/5, 979/6, 979/7 consists of total extent of Ac.10-90 cents. Therefore, based on the letter Ref.No.B/478/2019 dated 09.12.2019 of the third respondent/Tahsildar to the second respondent/Sub-Registrar, the second respondent/Sub-Registrar in-turn addressed Letter No.G1/3/2020 dated 07.01.2020 requesting the petitioner to approach the Tahsildar, Thonduru Mandal to rectify the Adangal.

¶45

The second respondent/Sub-Registrar did not refuse to register the document directly, but, invented a different story at the instance of the third respondent/Tahsildar herein. Merely because there is a variation in the extent as per R.S.R and Online Webland Adangal, the second respondent/Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register the document executed by the petitioner in favour of the third party, which is presented for registration. Therefore, it is the duty of the second respondent/Sub-Registrar to register the document ignoring the letter addressed by the third respondent/Tahsildar to the second respondent/Sub-Registrar, pointing out excess land variation in R.S.R and Online Webland Adangal record, as to the extent. But, in the instructions received from the third respondent/Tahsildar in Ref.No.B/37/2020 dated 28.01.2020, the third respondent/Tahsildar invented a different reason than the reason mentioned in Letter No.G1/3/2020 dated 07.01.2020. Even otherwise, the second respondent/Sub-Registrar is expected to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 71 of the Registration Act.

¶46

Section 71 of the Registration Act deals with reasons for refusal to register to be recorded, which is as follows:

¶47

“71. Reasons for refusal to register to be

recorded.—

MSM,J

(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2, and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.

¶52

(2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered.”

¶53

Instead of following the procedure prescribed under Section 71 of the Registration Act, the second respondent/Sub-Registrar adopted his own method for refusal to register the document, at the instance of the third respondent/Tahsildar.

¶54

It is well settled law that, when the document is presented for registration, the Sub-Registrar has no option, except to follow the procedure and receive the document and process. But, on the basis of memo issued by the Tahsildar and the I.G. of Registration, cannot refuse to register. The Sub-Registrar is bound to receive the documents and scrutinize the same and accordingly register the same provided that there are no legal impediments for registration of the documents. (vide P. Narasimha Reddy and another v. Sub-

¶55

Registrar, Shameerpeta Mandal, Ranga Reddy District³ and S. Nagi Reddy v. Joint Sub-Registrar, Tirupati⁴ ). Thus, the registering authorities are bound to act as per the provisions of the Registration Act and that such powers or functions cannot be curtailed by mere executive fiat, unless the same can be said to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the action of the second respondent/Sub-Registrar refusing to receive and process the document of sale, presented by the petitioner on the basis of letter of

¶56

3 2005 (2) ALD 807

¶57

4 1994 (4) ALT 556

¶58

MSM,J

¶59

¶60

the third respondent/Tahsildar is illegal and contrary to the law declared by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the judgments referred supra.

¶61

Hence, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power of judicial review, when the second respondent/Sub-Registrar and third respondent/Tahsildar, being public officers, failed to discharge their duty and acted totally contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act and also contrary to the law declared by this Court in the judgments referred supra.

¶62

In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the inaction of the second respondent in not registering the sale deed as illegal and arbitrary, while directing the second respondent/Sub-Registrar to receive and process the registered sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration, in accordance with law. No costs.

¶63

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶64

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶65

Date:19.02.2020

¶66

Vankara Lakshumma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vankara Lakshumma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vadlamudi Koteswari Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Angadala Nagamani Vs the State of Ap

Marika Surya Lakshmi, Vs the Tahsildar

Netinte.Sri Ramulu Vs The State of Ap

Ananthapalli Satya Venkata Kameswara Rao, Vs . The State of Andhra Pradesh

Guduguntla Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh