Allowed

M.Fathima Bee, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Feb 2020WP/1700/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a sale deed, arguing the land was wrongly included in a prohibitory list by the Tahsildar. The court held the Tahsildar lacked jurisdiction to create the list, which is the District Collector's duty alone.

What did the court decide?

Sub-Registrar is directed to receive and process the sale deed document for registration.

M.Fathima Bee, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Writ Petition No.1700 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of 5^th respondent herein/Sub-Registrar, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District, in refusing to entertain the sale deed for registration, stating that land is included in prohibitory list furnished by 4^th respondent herein/Tahsildar, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District under Section 22-A (1)(a) of Registration Act, 1908 (for short the Act) in respect of land covered by the document to an extent of Ac.3.68 cents in Sy.No.14 of Piler village and Mandal, Chittoor District, consequently direct 5^th respondent, to receive and process the document.

¶5

Originally land in an extent of Ac.3.68 cents in Sy.No.14 of Piler village fields, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District was initially purchased by Late Mallela Khaja Vaish Kurni Saheb under registered sale deed dated 19.01.1946, in turn Mallela Khaja Vaish Kurni Saheb sold the land to Late Mohammed Hussain under sale dated 16.10.1961, in turn Late Mohammed Hussain sold the land to father in law of petitioner Late Shaik Sattar Saheb under sale deed dated 22.06.1970. since, then father in law of petitioner was in possession of subject land till his death. After the death of father in law of petitioner, the subject property was devolved upon the husband of petitioner Late Ahmad Basha, the same was in possession and enjoyment till his demise. After death of husband of petitioner, the subject property was devolved upon the petitioner, since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Having recognized her possession, pattadar

¶6

wp_1700_ 2020

¶7

2 MSM, J

¶8

passbook and title deed were also issued in her favour, her name is also mutated in revenue records. When the petitioner presented sale deed for registration, in favour of 3^rd parties, in respect of subject land, 5^th respondent refused to receive the document for registration, stating that the land is included in prohibitory list of lands, communicated by 4^th respondent under Section 22-A (1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the action of 5^th respondent is questioned in refusing to receive the document for registration, based on the list furnished by 4^th respondent under Section 22-A (1)(a) 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, Piler Mandal has entered the above land in 22-A prohibitory property list and furnished to the SubRegistrar, Piler that the land in Sy.No.14 to an extent of Ac.3.68 cents of Piler village fields, Piler Mandal, by entering in Annexure-II of 22-A (1)(a) 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 refusing to receive the document for registration is the prohibitory list furnished by 4^th respondent, requested to pass appropriate order.

¶11

wp_1700_ 2020

¶12

3 MSM, J

¶13

It is an undisputed fact that petitioner succeeded the property from her husband. When the petitioner presented sale deed for registration in favour of 3^rd parties conveying subject land, before 5^th respondent, it was refused, 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)(a) of the Act, since, it is government land, earmarked for future needs of government only.

¶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)(a) of the Act, the District Collector alone is competent to include any property or exclude any property from prohibitory list, included in the list under Section 22-A (1)(a) of the Act. The Registration Department issued Memo G1/19131/2005 dated 14.09.2007, 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)(a) 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 and Inspector General concerned and Commissioner or 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)(a) of the Act shall be furnished by the “District Collector” alone in terms of Circular Memo referred above.

¶15

wp_1700_ 2020

¶16

4 MSM, J

¶17

Here, 4^th respondent included property in the prohibitory list, submitted under Section 22-A (1)(a) 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)(a) of the Act is illegal. The Tahsildar is not expected to usurp the power of District Collector and if such power is exercised, it is nothing but transgression of his power and usruping the power of Collector by inferior Officer. Therefore, such act is highly reprehensible.

¶18

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

¶19

1 2005 (2) ALT 807

¶20

2 1999 (4) ALT 556

¶21

wp_1700_ 2020

¶22

5 MSM, J

¶23

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 receive and process the document presented by the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order. There shall be no costs.

¶24

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

¶25

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶26

Dated 13.02.2020 Rvk

M.Fathima Bee, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Fathima Bee, 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

Arige Jyothamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Marla Veeranna Chowdary, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh