Allowed

Venati Leela Mohan Reddy v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Aug 2021WP/5984/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a writ petition held that the District Level Committee erroneously refused to delete a specific parcel of land from the prohibited property list. The Court found that a prior civil decree granting specific performance removed the restraint on alienation, rendering the prohibition temporary and thus no longer applicable post-decree. Consequently, the rejection was set aside as ill

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the deletion from prohibited lands list is set aside; the petitioner is directed to delete the entry within four weeks.

Venati Leela Mohan Reddy Vs State of Ap — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITON NO.5984 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“….to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 2^nd Respondent vide D.Dis. E5/1869/2020, dated 07.01.2021 in rejecting the deletion of petitioner’s land admeasuring with an extent of Ac.6.18 cents comprised in Survey No. 1560 of Chennur Bit II village, Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District from the list of prohibited lands maintained under section 22-A of Indian Registration Act, 1908, despite judgment rendered in petitioner favour in suit in O.S.No. 80 of 2006 on the file of court of I Additional District and Session Judge, Nellore as illegal, irregular and unconstitutional and violative of provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and the rules framed there under and offends articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to de-notify the petitioner land admeasuring with an extent of Ac.6.18 cents, comprised in Survey No. 1560 of Chennur Bit II village, Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District from the list of prohibited lands maintained under section 22-A of Indian Registration Act 1908 and pass such other orders.”

¶7

The claim of the petitioner is that he is possessor of the land in Sy.No. 1561 to an extent of Ac. 1.48 cents, Sy.No. 1559 to an extent of Ac. 1.93 cents, Sy.No.1560 to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents, Sy.No.1564/A to an extent of Ac. 0.97 cents, Sy.No. 1564/B to an extent of Ac. 0.28 cents, Sy.No. 1564/C1 to an extent of Ac. 0.22 cents, Sy.No. 1565/C to an extent of Ac. 0.57 cents, total extent Ac. 11.63 cents, having purchased the same under an Agreement of Sale Deed dated 01.10.2005 from one Doddi Sridhar Reddy. When he failed to register the sale deed within stipulated time, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No. 80 of 2006 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Nellore against the Doddi Sridhar Reddy seeking relief of specific performance of contract and the said suit

¶8

¶9

was decreed on 14.09.2009, directing the said Doddi Sridhar Reddy to execute sale deed within time frame and no appeal is preferred, hence the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.80 of 2006 has became final. Subsequently the petitioner filed E.P.No.49 of 2010 for execution of sale deed. After allowing the E.P, the court has executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner vide Document No.5255 of 2011, dated 20.08.2011, after paying requisite stamp duty.

¶10

While the matter stood thus, the petitioner made an application for mutation of his name in revenue records in the year 2016. Later he came to know that the subject land is kept under the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and that he made an application for de-notification of the said entries dated 17.12.2019. Accordingly, the 4^th respondent recommended to de-notify the land Sy.No.1560 to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents as per proceedings in Rc.B.No.16/2020, dated 18.02.2020 as it is a patta land and as far as other extents of the property in dispute are concerned it is stated that it was notified as ‘dotted land’ in the revenue records. Eventually District Level Committee headed by the 2^nd respondent vide D.Dis.No.E5/1869/ 2020, dated 07.01.2021 extracted the report and recommendations of the respondents 3 and 4 and erroneously came to conclusion that as per the prohibited property list the Sy.No. 1560 to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents was prohibited by the “ District Judge, Nellore in O.S.No. 80 of 2006, dated 14.09.2009, but not by the 2^nd respondent ” and rejected the request for deletion of entry maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the in action of the respondent is

¶11

¶12

questioned in this writ petition and requested to issue direction as states supra.

¶13

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition and drawn attention of this court about the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in D.Dis.No.E5/1869/2020, dated 07.01.2021 and findings recorded therein and contend that the said order is erroneous. On the face of it, the I Additional District Judge, Nellore, did not prohibit alienation of the land in dispute, except granting a relief sought by the petitioner by a decree and judgment in the suit itself. Thereby the impugned order is illegal and requested to set aside the same.

¶14

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that in view of the order passed by the District Judge, the request of this petitioner for deletion of the land from the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act for the land in Sy.No. 1560 to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents was rejected rightly and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶15

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No. 80 of 2006 for specific performance of agreement of sale against Doddi Sridhar Reddy, who failed to execute the Registered Sale Deed as per decree and Judgment of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore, dated 14.09.2009. The petitioner placed the decree and judgment in O.S.No.80 of 2006 and also additional material on record.

¶16

As per decree and judgment the said Doddi Sridhar Reddy has to execute the registered sale deed in favour of this petitioner by receiving balance of sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- within

¶17

¶18

three months. In the event of failure to perform the specific direction by said Doddi Sridhar Reddy to execute sale deed, the petitioner is entitled to obtain sale deed through process of court and further directed the petitioner to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- into court to the credit of suit within a period of one week from the date of decree and judgment.

¶19

Pursuant to the decree and judgment in O.S.No. 80 of 2006 the petitioner deposited the balance of sale consideration into court and sale deed was executed by the court subject to deposit of stamp duty and registration, but it was not registered.

¶20

Thereupon the petitioner made an application through MeeSeva dated 17.12.2019 for deletion of the land from the prohibited property list in Sy.No. 1560 and other survey numbers from the dotted lands register etc., But the order passed in RCB.16/2020, dated 18.02.2020 to the 2^nd respondent/ District Collector and recommendations for deletion of the land to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents situated in Sy.No. 1560 of Chennuru Village, Guduru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. But the District Level Committee passed an order by rejecting the request of the petitioner to delete the land to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents situated in Sy.No. 1560 of Chennuru Village, on the ground that the I Additional District Judge, Nellore prohibited registration of the document pertaining to the said property.

¶21

As seen from the earlier paragraphs, the land in Sy.No. 1560 to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents is a private patta land and the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector recommended for deletion of the land from the prohibited property list, but the I Additional District

¶22

¶23

Judge, Nellore in O.S.No.80 of 2006 by its order dated 14.09.2019 prohibited registration for the said land. The District Level Committed misinterpreted the said interim order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore. As the interim order is only restraining alienation during pendency of the suit. When once suit is disposed of, any interim order passed therein is automatically merged with final decree and judgment. Hence, question of any restraint order during pendency of the suit will not come in the way of District Level Committee and it is only temporary injunction during pendency of the suit. Therefore, question of District Level Committee rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the I Additional District Judge, Nellore, prohibited the registration is nothing but misinterpretation and committed an error in not deleting the land in Sy.No. 1560 to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents from the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Hence the order of the District Level Committee is illegal and arbitrary.

¶24

Therefore, the impugned order in D.Dis.No.E5/1869/2020, dated 07.01.2021 passed by the District Level Committee in rejecting the deletion of the land to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents situated in Sy.No. 1560 of Chennuru Village, Guduru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District is hereby set aside, while directing the District Level Committee to delete the land to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents situated in Sy.No. 1560 of Chennuru Village, Guduru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District from the prohibited property list notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

¶26

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No costs.

¶27

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

¶28

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 23-08-2021

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶33

WRIT PETITON NO.5984 of 2021

¶34

Date: 23-08-2021

¶35

Venati Leela Mohan Reddy v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venati Leela Mohan Reddy v. State of Ap

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

Rudra Venkata Ramachandra Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Rafee Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Simhadri Chandra Sekhar, Vs Simhadri Veera Venkata Narasimha Murthy (Died)

Chawa.Suguna Vs The State of Andhra pradesh

Satti Madhu Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Medapati Srinivasa Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh