Allowed

Yelala Narasimha Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jan 2021WP/1340/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inclusion of a specific land parcel in the prohibited list under the Registration Act, 1908, following a letter from the Wakf Board. The Court set aside the impugned order, holding that previous judgments dismissed the Wakf Board's claims to the land, and directed the registration authorities to process the petitioner's document for registration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.11.2016 set aside; Petitioner's document directed to be received for registration in respect of house plot No. 89 admeasuring 143.61 Sq. yards in Sy. No. 320 of Parimala Nagar,

Yelala Narasimha Reddy, Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No. 1340 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned letter/order of the 4^th respondent in F.No.01/Prot/AP/Genl/2016, dated 16.11.2016 insofar as including the land in Sy.No.320 of Parimala Nagar, Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District (now 76^th ward of Kurnool City) in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’) though the 4^th respondent claim was dismissed in O.S.No.27/1969 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool by judgment and decree dated 26.02.1970 and orders of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.10631/1992 dated 28.12.1992 and number of subsequent orders of this Court, Civil Courts and Wakf Tribunal, as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the impugned notification insofar as inclusion of the aforesaid land in Sy.No.320.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that he purchased plot bearing No.89 admeasuring 143.61 Sq. yards in Sy.No.320 of Parimala Nagar, Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District (now 76^th ward of Kurnool City) from his vendor by name V.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy for a valuable consideration. Since then, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject property without any interruption from anybody.

¶6

¶7

The letter of the 4^th respondent dated 16.11.2016 restraining the 3^rd respondent from registration of the document in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.320 on the ground that the land is a Wakf property, is illegal. The issuance of order by the 4^th respondent is contrary to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.27 of 1969 dated 26.02.1970 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool. The suit was filed by the Wakf Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, represented by its Regional Officer, Anantapur, for recovery of the plaint schedule property, wherein the Survey No.320 is included and after detailed trial, the suit was dismissed. The Court observed that all the documents filed before the trial Court shows that the lands were sold to the defendants or to their predecessors in 1940, 1943 and the lease deed also goes to show that it was executed in 1915; the plaintiff does not know when the institution lost its possession and who endowed the property; and all the alienations in respect of all the four items were effected prior to 1947, holding that the suit is dismissed on the ground it is barred by limitation. The said judgment and decree have become final. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed W.P.No.9228 of 2013 by order dated 28.03.2013 holding that the Wakf Board can no longer assert any right over the land in Survey Nos.317 and 320 and the action of the Sub-Registrar, Kallur Village in refusing to register the document presented by the petitioners therein in respect of the subject land cannot be sustained. In

¶8

¶9

view of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.27 of 1969 dated 26.02.2017 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool and orders passed in W.P.No.9228 of 2013 dated 28.03.2013, the impugned letter of the 4^th respondent dated 16.11.2016, is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

¶10

The 2^nd respondent filed counter stating that the 4^th respondent addressed a letter dated 16.11.2016 to the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Department, Andhra Pradesh, as per the decision of the Full Bench of common High Court passed in Writ Appeal Nos.343 of 2015 and batch dated 23.12.2015, requesting the registration authorities as per the provisions of Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Act not to entertain any registrations in respect of the land situated in Survey No.320 of Kallur Village. As per Section 51 of the Waqf Act, 1995, the alienation of wakf properties is prohibited. The land in question is prohibited for registration under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Act. As per the Full Bench decision, the 4^th respondent is the competent authority to communicate the list of Wakf properties to the registration authorities and the same is binding.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 16.11.2016 is illegal and not binding on the registration authorities as the 4^th respondent suffered judgment and decree in O.S.No.27 of

¶12

¶13

1969 dated 26.02.1970 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and common High Court and also this Court in several writ petitions passed orders holding that the Wakf Board can no longer assert any right over the subject land. The arbitrary action of the 2^nd respondent in refusing to register the document in respect of the subject land is illegal and contrary to the judgments of this Court. Hence, the impugned order of the 4^th respondent insofar as including the subject land in Sy.No.320 of Kallur Village in the prohibited property list, is liable to be set aside.

¶14

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps states that the 4^th respondent by proceedings dated 16.11.2016 requested the registration authorities as per Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Act not to entertain any sale deed/mortgage deed/gift deed/transfer deed, etc. from the third parties in respect of all the Wakf properties including the land in Survey No.320 of Kallur Village, Kurnool District. Hence, refusing the registration of the subject property, cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

Sri Shaik Karimullah, learned standing counsel, while reiterating the averments of the counter, would contend that the alienation of the wakf property is illegal. The 4^th respondent has rightly issued the impugned letter requesting

¶16

¶17

the registration authorities not to entertain any document in respect of the subject land for registration.

¶18

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the action of the 2^nd respondent in refusing to receive the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject land in respect of house plot No.89 situated in Survey No.320 of Kallur Village & Mandal, Kurnool District, based on impugned order of the 4^th respondent, which is contrary to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.27 of 1969 dated 26.02.1970 by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool and the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.9228 of 2013 dated 28.03.2013 and W.P.No.10631 of 1992 dated 28.12.1992, wherein this Court categorically held that the 4^th respondentBoard can no longer assert any right over the land in Survey Nos.317 and 320 of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶19

Inclusion of the subject landed property in the prohibited property list on the ground that the 4^th respondent requested the registration authorities not to entertain any sale deed/mortgage deed/gift deed/transfer deed, etc., in respect of the subject wakf property as per the Full Bench decision of common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others Vs. Principal

¶20

¶21

Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others¹ , wherein the High Court held that when the revenue, endowments, wakf and registration authorities arbitrarily including the private patta land in the prohibited property list maintained under Section 22-A of the Act, with fond hope that the authorities would delete the land, which is erroneously included in the prohibited property list, considering the evidence available on record and orders and judgments of the High Court, to reduce the litigation before this Court, authorized the authorities to do the exercise of the deletion and inclusion of the landed properties in the prohibited property list. Again, the authorities, arbitrarily, contrary to the evidence on record and judgments of the High Court, under the guise of the judgment in the writ appeal, indiscriminately included the land/landed properties in the prohibited property list, thereby the litigation increased before this Court, instead of reducing the litigation. However, the order passed in writ appeals was modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the matter is remanded back to this Court for fresh consideration and the same is pending adjudication. The authorities could not blindly include the private landed property in the prohibited property list.

¶22

Since 1940, several registered transactions took place in respect of the subject property and the suit filed by the 4^th respondent-Wakf Board was dismissed and it is fully

¶23

1 2016(2) ALD 236

¶24

¶25

developed residential area. The litigation no longer be continued in one form or the other and it is better to put an end to the dispute. Inclusion of the subject property in the prohibited property list maintained under the provisions of Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Act, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence available on record.

¶26

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.11.2016 is set aside insofar as the petitioner’s subject property is concerned. The 2^nd respondent is directed to receive and process the document to be presented by the petitioner for registration in respect of house plot bearing No.89 admeasuring 143.61 Sq. yards in Sy.No.320 of Parimala Nagar, Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, without reference to the impugned letter of the 4^th respondent dated 16.11.2016, and release the document as per law. No order as to costs.

¶27