Allowed

E.Satish Kumar v. The State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Jul 2021WP/7583/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed two writ petitions for refusing registration of sale deeds due to prior prohibitory list notifications. It held that post-deletion of lands by the District Collector, the interdict was released, making the prior refusals illegal and directing registration subject to other legal conditions.

What did the court decide?

Refusal orders dated 16.05.2017 and 23.01.2018 set aside; the District Registrar directed to register the instruments of conveyance upon presentation.

E.Satish Kumar Vs The State of A.P. — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NOs.7583 AND 7679 OF 2021

¶3

COMMON ORDER :

¶4

Both the writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner to direct the fourth respondent/Joint Sub-Registrar, Chilmathur, Ananthapuram District, to receive and register the sale deeds relating to

¶5

(i) land of an extent of Ac.0-64 cents in Sy.No.325/2 of Konduru Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Anantapuram District, vide Refusal order dated 16.05.2017 and dismissing the Appeal No.05/2017 dated 28.12.2020 by the fifth respondent/District Registrar; (W.P.No.7583 of 2021) and

¶6

(ii) land of an extent of Ac.1-32 cents in Sy.No.297-7C of Konduru Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Anantapuram District, vide Refusal order dated 23.01.2018 and dismissing the Appeal No.12/2018 dated 28.12.2020 by the fifth respondent/District Registrar.(W.P.No.7699 of 2021)

¶7

Inspite of the fact that the land was deleted from Prohibitory Property List under Section 22-A(1)(a) & (e) of Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘Act’), vide D.Dis.E2/5608/2020 dated 03.01.2021 of the second respondent/District Collector, Anantapuram, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the fourth respondent to admit the sale deed by setting the aside the order of refusal dated 16.05.2017 & 23.01.2018 of the fourth respondent in Appeal No.05/2017 dated 28.12.2020 and Appeal No.12/2018 dated 28.12.2020.

¶8

¶9

The question involved in these two writ petitions is common. Therefore, both the writ petitions are taken up together, as I find that it is expedient to pass common order.

¶10

For the sake of convenience W.P.No.7583 of 2021 is taken as leading case. The petitioner in both the writ petitions and respondents are one and the same, except the extent of land. Originally, the land in Sy.No.325/2 in an extent of Ac.1-92 cents of Konduru Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Anantapur District was assigned in the year 1928. Since then, the original assignee and thereafter his legal heirs were in possession and enjoyment. The assignment was unconditional. Therefore, the assignee or legal heirs are entitled to sell the land, but the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 have no application to the said land.

¶11

The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0-64 cents out of Ac.1-28 cents out of Ac.1-92 cents in Sy.No.325/2 in Konduru Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Anantapur District and an extent of Ac.132 cents out of Ac.1-42 cents out of Ac.5-50 cents in Sy.No.297-4C in Konduru Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Anantapur District, for valuable consideration and obtained two sale deeds from the vendors and presented the instrument of conveyance for registration. But, the Registrar passed an order under Section 71 of the Act, refusing to register the instruments presented for registration vide order dated 16.05.2017 and 23.01.2018 respectively. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeals i.e. Appeal No.05/2017 and Appeal No.12/2018 before Respondent No.5/District Registrar. Both the appeals were dismissed by the fifth respondent, confirming the order passed by the fourth respondent/Joint Sub-Registrar.

¶12

¶13

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions are filed, on the ground of refusal to receive and register the document in view of de-notifying the land under Section 22-A(1)(a) & (e) of the Act is illegal and contrary to law and thereby, the petitioner sought a declaration and consequently direction as stated above.

¶14

During hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration fairly submitted that the second respondent/District Collector issued an order dated 03.01.2021 for deletion of the land in Sy.No.325-2 in an extent of Ac.1-28 cents out of Ac.1-92 cents of Konduru village, which was entered in the name of Boya Narasimhanna s/o Boya Bommanna. Further, the legal heirs of the original assignee have sold an extent of Ac.1-28 cents out of Ac.1-92 cents to the petitioner vide Doc.P/101/2016 dated 20.07.2016 and Doc.P/35/2017 dated 01.04.2017. Further reported that, the proposed land has been assigned prior to 18.06.1954. Hence, recommended for deletion.

¶15

Similarly, land of an extent of Ac.1-42 cents out of Ac.5-50 cents in Sy.No.297-4 of Konduru Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Anantapuram District, is also ordered to be deleted vide proceedings D.Dis.E2/5608/2020 dated 03.01.2021. When the land in dispute is purchased by this petitioner in two different survey numbers is ordered to be de-notified from the list of prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A(1)(a) & (e) of the Act, there is no bar to register the instrument of conveyance presented by this petitioner evidencing purchase of land referred above. Therefore, keeping in view the orders passed by the second respondent/District Collector, Anantapur, proceedings D.Dis.E2/5608/2020 dated 03.01.2021, the interdict

¶16

¶17

created by notification is released and the fifth respondent/District Registrar is bound to register the documents presented by this petitioner.

¶18

Hence, the refusal orders passed by the fourth respondent/Joint Sub-Registrar in 16.05.2017 and 23.01.2018 and affirmed by the fifth respondent/District Registrar in Appeal Nos.05/2017 & 12/2018 dated 28.12.2020 are hereby set-aside, declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary, while directing the fifth respondent/District Registrar, Hindupur, Anantapur District, to register the instrument of conveyance on presentation by the petitioner, if the documents satisfy the other conditions.

¶19

In the result, writ petitions are allowed, setting-aside the refusal orders passed by the fourth respondent/Joint Sub-Registrar dated 16.05.2017 and 23.01.2018 and affirmed by the fifth respondent/District Registrar in Appeal Nos.05/2017 & 12/2018 dated 28.12.2020; while directing the fifth respondent/District Registrar, Hindupur, Anantapur District, to register the instrument of conveyance on presentation by the petitioner, if the documents satisfy the other conditions. No costs.

¶20

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs.

¶21

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶22

Date:16.07.2021 SP

E.Satish Kumar v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Satish Kumar v. The State of A.P.

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

Gavireddy Varahalamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Valavala Satyanarayana, Vs Sri Muthyala Raju Revu

Govada Maha Nakshatrakudu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vankivolu Tirupal Reddy Vs the Special Deputy Collector

Vemana Ramanaiah Vs the Special Deputy Collector

Akula Sravan Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh