Allowed

Arige Jyothamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Feb 2020WP/1696/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a writ petition declaring the action of Tahsildar in keeping a document pending for registration illegal. Held that only the District Collector, not the Tahsildar, can furnish the list under Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. Ordered registration of the disputed document.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar, Kadapa (Urban) to register and release the document and declared the applicant's action illegal and arbitrary.

Arige Jyothamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Writ Petition No.1696 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of 4^th respondent herein/Tahsildar, Kadapa Mandal, Y.S.R District, in keeping the document pending, presented for registration, in view of prohibitory list furnished by 4^th respondent under Section 22-A (1)(b) of Registration Act, 1908 (for short the Act) including the land covered by the document to an extent of Ac.0.94 cents out of Ac.2.38 cents in Sy.No.1005/2 of Chinnachowk village fields, Kadapa Mandal, Y.S.R District, declare the same as illegal and arbitrary, consequently direct 5^th respondent herein/Tahsildar, Kadapa (Urban), Y.S.R District, to register and release the document.

¶5

Father in law of petitioner Arige Subbarayudu along with one M. Ramakrishnaiah purchased an extent of Ac.1.88 cents out of Ac.2.38 cents in Sy.No.1005/2 of Chinnachowk village fields, Kadapa Mandal, Y.S.R District by registered sale deed dated 13.08.1994 bearing document No.4809/1984 jointly, since then the same was in their possession and enjoyment, till share of father in law of petitioner was gifted in favour of petitioner, in the year 2018, when, father in law of petitioner executed gift deed dated 13.12.2018, presented the same before 5^th respondent for registration and 5^th respondent having assigned pending document P.No.727/2018 refused to register and release the same, on the ground that the land is included in prohibitory list of lands, communicated by 4^th respondent under Section 22-A (1)(b) of the Act, the document is kept pending till date. Therefore, the action of 5^th respondent is questioned in keeping the

¶6

wp_1696_ 2020

¶7

2 MSM, J

¶8

document pending for registration, based on the list furnished by 4^th respondent under Section 22-A (1)(b) of the Act, who is incompetent, requested to issue direction, to register the document and release the same.

¶9

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) placed on record, written instructions dated 07.02.2020, alleging that Tahsildar, Kadapa has entered the above land in 22-A prohibitory property list and furnished to the SubRegistrar, Kadapa that the land in Sy.No.1005/2 to an extent of Ac.2.38 cents of Chinnachowk village, Kadapa Mandal by entering in Annexure-II of 22-A (1)(b) of Registration Act, 1908 for prohibition. Moreover, the land is kept for future needs of government only.

¶10

Though the petitioner raised several other contentions, they are not relevant, but the basis for keeping the document pending for registration is the prohibitory list furnished by 4^th respondent, requested to pass appropriate order.

¶11

It is an undisputed fact that father in law of petitioner purchased the property along with one M. Ramakrishnaiah under registered sale deed dated 13.08.1984 bearing document No.4809/1984 and later settlement deed dated 13.12.2018 was executed, presented for registration before 5^th respondent, but it was kept pending, only for the reason that this land was included in prohibitory list of properties, furnished by 4^th respondent to 5^th respondent, under Section 22-A (1)(b) of the Act, since, it is government land, earmarked for future needs of government only.

¶12

3 MSM, J

¶13

wp_1696_ 2020

¶14

The main contention of petitioner before this Court is that Tahsildar is incompetent to include the property in prohibitory list under Section 22-A (1)(b) of the Act, the District Collector alone is competent to include any property or exclude any property from prohibitory list, published under Section 22-A (1)(b) of the Act. The Registration Department issued Memo G1/19331/2005 dated 14.04.2007, 2^nd para of memo is relevant for the purpose of deciding the real controversy. According to 2^nd para, for the purpose of Section 22-A (1)(b) of the Act, District Collector shall furnish the list of immovable properties owned by the State to the Registering Officer, having jurisdiction over such property and also to the District Registrar, Director of Inspector General concerned and Commissioner of Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in proforma Appendix-II and the list must be signed by the concerned authorized representative of Central or State Government as the case may be. Therefore, the list under Section 22-A (1)(b) of the Act shall be furnished by the “District Collector” alone in terms of Circular Memo referred above.

¶15

But here, 4^th respondent included property in the prohibitory list, submitted under Section 22-A (1)(b) of the Act and the act of 4^th respondent is without any competency. When 4^th respondent exercised power beyond the power conferred on him, inclusion of property in prohibitory list, published under Section 22-A (1)(b) of the Act is illegal. The Tahsildar is not expected to exercise the power of District Collector and if such power is exercised, it is nothing but

¶16

4 MSM, J

¶17

wp_1696_ 2020

¶18

transgression of his power and usruping the power of Collector by inferior Officer. Therefore, such act is highly reprehensible.

¶19

Acting upon such list, furnished by incompetent person i.e. 4^th respondent by 5^th respondent, refusing to register the document, keeping it pending is an illegal act. Refusal to register a document on the memo issued by Tahsildar or any other officer is illegal, in view of the Division Bench two Division Bench judgments in P.Narasimha Reddy v. Sub-Registrar, Shameerpeta Mandal, Ranga Reddy District¹ and S.Nagi Reddy v. Joint Sub-Registrar, Tirupati² . In the present case, the Sub Registrar kept the registration pending, on account of list communicated by Tahsildar, under Section 22-A (1)(b) of the Act, when Tahsildar is incompetent, it cannot be construed as legal impediment on the document. Therefore, the action of 5^th respondent, in keeping the document presented for registration, pending is nothing but arbitrary exercise of power, consequently the action of 5^th respondent is declared as illegal and arbitrary.

¶20

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of 5^th respondent as illegal and arbitrary, consequently 5^th respondent is directed to register the document presented by the petitioner, release the same, if it is otherwise in order. There shall be no costs.

¶21

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

¶22

stand closed.

¶23

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶24

Dated 13.02.2020 Rvk

¶25

1 2005 (2) ALT 807

¶26

2 1999 (4) ALT 556

Arige Jyothamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arige Jyothamma, 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

Karanam Sangameswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Undru Ratnaraju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bojja Ramalinga Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Akula Venkata Ramana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Fathima Bee, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Marla Veeranna Chowdary, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh