Allowed

A.v.Ramana Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Jan 2021WP/25184/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged inclusion of his purchased land in the prohibited property list barring registration. Relying on prior judgment confirming auction sales extinguish assigned land status, Court directed deletion of the land from the list and mandatory registration of the sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to delete land from prohibited property list and register the sale deed within two weeks.

A.v.Ramana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.25184 OF 2020

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in not taking steps for deletion of petitioner’s property viz., land, an extent of Ac.3.00 cents out of Ac.5.00 cents situated in Sy.No.81-4 of Kirekera Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District, from the prohibited property list and the further action of the respondents 4 & 5 in declining to receive and accept the sale deeds presented by the petitioner by relying on the prohibited property list as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to delete the aforesaid land of the petitioner from the prohibited property list and respondents 4 & 5 to receive and admit the sale deed sought to be presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject land for registration and release the same.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land, an extent of Ac.3.00 cents out of Ac.5.00 cents situated in Syu.No.81-4 of Kirekera Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District, having purchased the same, under a registered sale deed, dated 03.06.2011, vide document bearing No.6198 of 2011, for valid consideration from one K. Basavlingamma. Since the date of purchase, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Originally, the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 cents situated in Sy.No.81-4 of Kirekera Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District, is assigned land. The said land was purchased by one K. Narayanappa in an auction

¶6

¶7

MGR,J WP_25184_2020

¶8

held on 25.10.1994. The Deputy Registrar/Officer on Special Duty, Anantapur Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Anantapur issued sale certificate in Form 10 dated 14.10.1995 to the auction purchaser. Thereafter, the auction purchaser gifted the property to one K. Chowdamma, vide registered gift deed bearing document No.3899 of 2001. The petitioner purchased the said land of Ac.5.00 cents situated in Sy.No.81-4 of Kirekera village, from the legal heir of Chowdamma namely K. Basavalingamma. Thereafter, out of Ac.5.00 cents, the petitioner sold an extent of Ac.2.00 cents to one K. Shanthamma and another. When the registering authority refused to register the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5272 of 2011. Subsequent to the orders passed in the said writ petition, the document was entertained by the registration authorities. Now, the petitioner, to meet his financial necessities, intended to sell the remaining Ac.3.00 cents and approached the 5^th respondent for taking valuation certificate. The petitioner was informed that the subject land is shown in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A 1(a) of the Registration Act and hence registration cannot be permitted unless the same is deleted from the prohibited property list. Assailing the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents, this Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Both the counsel agreed to advance the arguments in the Writ Petition at the admission stage as the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the earlier order of this court.

¶10

¶11

MGR,J WP_25184_2020

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is contrary to the orders of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of A.P in Sub Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District Vs. K. Guravaiah¹ and contends that the lands which were assigned by the State can be mortgaged in favour of Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society, and if the mortgagor commits default in payment of the loan amount, the said lands can be sold for recovery of the same, and that such a sale is valid in law. He contends that once there is a sale of the land in an execution proceeding in favour of the auction purchaser, from whom the vendor’s vendor of the petitioner and eventually the petitioner purchased the properties and sale certificate was also issued in favour of the auction purchaser, thereafter the lands ceased the character of assigned land and the auction purchaser and the purchasers from the auction purchaser would get the valid title to the properties.

¶13

In K. Guravaiah’s case referred supra, this Court held that when the original assignee mortgaged the land assigned to him in favour of the Bank or a financial institution or Co-operative Society under A.P. Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 and if the money is not paid, the consequences provided in the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 would naturally follow; that it is permissible to put the said land to public auction under the said Act and recover the loan dues to the financial institution by way of sale; the land loses its character of assignment and such a sale is valid in law. It is also held that as per Section 2(1) of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition

¶14

1 2009(2) ALD 250 (DB)

¶15

¶16

MGR,J WP_25184_2020

¶17

of Transfers) Act, 1977, mortgage in favour of a bank or a Cooperative Society does not amount to alienation.

¶18

Following the said decision in K. Guravaiah’s case , the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to delete the petitioner’s land referred above from the prohibited property list issued by the Revenue Authorities under Section 22-A 1(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to respondents 4 & 5. The petitioner shall submit the sale deed for registration before the 5^th respondent and the same shall be considered for registration strictly in accordance with the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules made thereunder and Stamp Act, 1899 by the 5^th respondent, without reference to the prohibited property list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of submission of the document by the petitioner. No order as to costs.

¶19

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶20

__________________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶21

04.01.2021 Vjl

A.v.Ramana Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.v.Ramana Reddy, 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

K K Sherwani Vs The A.P State Waqf Board

R.Venkatesulu Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Orient Bell Limited, Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.

K Nagaraja Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Pasupuleti Ananda Vidya Sagar Vs State of Ap

Smt a Anasuya Vs State of Andhra Pradesh