Dismissed

Madineni Subhasini v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Jun 2021WP/296/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal to register a sale deed. The petitioner had failed to pay consideration, while the vendor sold the property to a third party after it was deleted from the prohibited list under Section 22-A. The Court held that the Second Sale Deed subsisted, preventing registration of the pending document under Section 22-B. Petitioner directed to file c

What did the court decide?

Refusal of registration to sale deed pending No. 74 of 2020 upheld; petitioner directed to file suit for recovery from Civil Court.

Madineni Subhasini Vs The State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 296 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The petitioner being a vendee filed this Writ Petition, being aggrieved by the action of the 5^th respondent in refusing to register the document vide P.No.74/20 vide refusal order dated 31.08.2020 executed in respect of the land to an extent of Ac. 3.12 cents situated in Sy.No. 535/2 of Koduru Village field and Panchayat Area of Chilamathur Mandal, Anantapur District is illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Heard, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps for Respondents. 3. The Case of the petitioner is that one Adi Murthy S/o Narayanappa, resident of Kanisettypalli, H/o Koduru, Chialamathur Mandal was an absolute owner and possessor of an extent of Ac. 3.12 cents out of Ac. 5.12 cents situated in Sy.No. 535/2 of Koduru Village field. The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the original owner in the year 2017 and the registration of the document not materialized as the subject property was included in the prohibited property list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner states that he purchased the land for valid consideration on 17.06.2020 by way of Sale Deed. The said Sale Deed presented before the 5^th respondent for registration of the document and allotted pending Document No.74/2020. His vendor also delivered possession of the property to the petitioner and he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the land.

¶6

The petitioner further states that the land to an extent of Ac.

¶7

9.21 cents, situated in Sy.No. 532/2 of Koduru Village,

¶8

¶9

Chilamathur Mandal was assigned in favour of one Boya Chinnajigadu vide DAR Dis.No.878/38, dated 24.12.1928. His vendor succeeded to the property, as he being the legal heir of the original assignee. The assignment was made prior to G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954. The 1^st respondent issued G.O.No. 575, dated 16.11.2018, whereby the Government ordered for deletion of the Government land assigned prior to 18.06.1954 from the purview of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶10

Pending Writ Petition, the 6^th respondent being the owner of the land got himself impleaded as the 6^th respondent in the Writ Petition and states that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the Writ Petition, stating that he inherited the land to an extent of Ac. 5.12 cents situated in Sy.No. 535/2 of Koduru Village from his forefathers and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. He filed Writ Petition No. 10590 of 2020, seeking deletion of the land from the prohibited property list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as per the G.O.Ms.No.575, dated 16.11.2018. This Court while dispose of the Writ Petition, directing the District Collector to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 20.04.2019. The petitioner approached the 6^th respondent to sell the land and after execution of the document, presented the same for Registration before the 5^th respondent on 17.06.2020, who refused and returned the document on 31.08.2020 as the property was included in the prohibited property list maintained under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908. But the sale consideration in full was not paid by the petitioner, when the petitioner was expressed his disinterest to purchase the land. Thereafter, on request of the 6^th respondent, the District Collector, deleted the land from the prohibited property list vide proceedings dated 19.11.2020.

¶11

¶12

Thereafter, the 6^th respondent sold the said property in favour of Y. Srinivasulu and others vide registered document No. 3741 of 2020 dated 20.11.2020 for valid sale consideration.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner could contend that the refusal of the registration of pending document No.74 of 2020 vide refusal order dated 31.08.2020 on the ground that the petitioner’s land is included in the prohibited property list maintained under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 is illegal and arbitrary. As the land is assigned prior to 18.06.1954, there is no prohibition of alienation of the property by the assignee as per G.O.Ms.No. 575, dated 16.11.2018, the land has to be deleted from the prohibited property list. Hence, the impugned refusal order passed by the 5^th respondent in refusing to register the document vide P.No. 74 of 2020 is illegal and arbitrary and he prays this Court to direct the 5^th respondent to register and release the same as per the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶14

Per Contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps, appearing for the respondents would contend that the subject land referred to in the pending document No.74 of 2020 is included in the prohibited property list maintained under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, which prohibits registration of the land by way of Sale Deeds. Subsequently, Sale Deed dated 20.11.2020 executed by the 6^th respondent in favour of Y. Srinivasulu and others was registered vide document bearing No. 3741 of 2020 dated 20.11.2020 after deletion of the subject property from the prohibited property list, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the Writ Petition to process the pending document No. 74 of 2020 for registration. The petitioner has to approach the Civil Court for

¶15

¶16

cancellation of the Registered Sale Deed Doc.No. 3741 of 2020 dated 20.11.2020.

¶17

Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent would contend that the 6^th respondent inherited the subject land and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. After deletion of the subject property from the prohibited property list by the District Collector as per G.O.Ms.No.575, the 6^th respondent sold the property through Registered Sale Deed vide 3741 of 2020 dated 20.11.2020 in favour of Y. Srinivasulu and he was put in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner has no right to seek registration of the pending document No.74 of 2020, as he failed to pay the sale consideration. If the petitioner has any grievance, he has to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, moreover, without cancellation of the registered document bearing No. 3741 of 2020 dated 20.11.2020, the pending document No. 74 of 2020 cannot be registered.

¶18

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the record, this Court found that admittedly 6^th respondent is the owner of the subject land, he got deleted the land from the prohibited property list, as per orders passed by this Court dated 24.06.2020 in Writ Petition No. 10590 of 2020, wherein the District Collector is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 20.04.2019 for deletion of the subject land. On consideration, the subject property was deleted from the prohibited property list in terms of G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018 and after deletion, the 6^th respondent sold the property to Y. Srinivasulu and others through registered document dated 20.11.2020 for valid sale consideration. Therefore, the petitioner

¶19

¶20

has no right to seek registration of the pending document No. 74 of 2020, which registration is refused by its refusal order dated 31.08.2020, without cancellation of the registered document bearing No. 3741 of 2020 dated 20.11.2020. As discussed supra, the 5^th respondent could not be directed to register the pending document No. 74 of 2020 in respect of the very same property twice, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence, the Writ Petition is misconceived and devoid of any merit and same is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶22

__________________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶23

Date:16.04.2021 KK

¶24

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 296 OF 2021

¶27

Date: 16.04.2021

¶28

Madineni Subhasini v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madineni Subhasini 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Ramesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolli Rama Koteswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Pothala Lakshmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

V Ramalingeswara Prasad Vs v Reddy Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Shaik Riyaz, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Diwakar Babu Vs the State of Ap