Allowed

Pathuri Subbaiah, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Dec 2022WP/10740/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice V. Sujatha granted a writ petition challenging the validity of a prohibitory property list issued by a Tahsildar. The Court held that only the District Collector is competent to furnish such lists under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the 4th Respondent/Sub-Registrar is directed to register and process documents without referring to the prohibited list furnished by the Tahsildar.

Pathuri Subbaiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No. 10740 of 2016

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶5

“...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent, that the 3^rd respondent prepared the prohibitory property list under section 22(a)(1)(a) in his proceedings in Rc.B/199/2012, dated. 02-052012 thereby directed the 4^th respondent not to entertain in any registered deed of conveyances including sale for an extent 1024 sq. yards, 956 sq. yards 977 sq. yards in respectively covered by Survey Nos. 369/9, 369/10 and 369/11 of Chirala Revenue village and Mandal of Prakasam District, as illegal, irregular, irrational and without jurisdiction, as illegal, irregular, irrational and without jurisdiction and set aside the same violative of provisions of Stamps and Registration Act and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to delete the aforesaid land from 22(a) of The Registration Act, 1908 proceedings as enlisted by the 3^rd respondent and entertain the any deed of registered conveyance including sale over the aforesaid land and pass...”

¶6

¶7

The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that Tahsildar is incompetent to furnish the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Act and the District Collector alone is competent to include any property or exclude any property from prohibitory list, published under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Act. The Registration Department issued Memo G1/19331/2005 dated 14.04.2007, 2^nd para of memo is relevant for the purpose of deciding the real controversy, which reads as follows:

¶8

“District Collector shall furnish the list of immovable properties owned by the State to the Registering Officer, having jurisdiction over such property and also to the District Registrar, Director of Inspector General concerned and Commissioner of Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in proforma Appendix-II and the list must be signed by the concerned authorized representative of Central or State government as the case may be”.

¶9

Therefore, the list under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Act

¶10

shall be furnished by the “District Collector” alone in terms of Circular Memo referred above.

¶11

In view of the facts stated above, since the impugned proceedings in Rc.B/199/20`12, dated 02.05.2012 issued by

¶12

¶13

the Tahsildar, Chirala, who has no jurisdiction to furnish the same, the impugned letter is liable to be set aside.

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the 4^th Respondent/Sub-Registrar, Chirala is directed to receive, register and process the document(s) presented by the petitioner, release the same, as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 without referring to the list furnished by the Tahsildar.

¶15

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶16

_______________ V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 15.12.2022

KSN

217

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶22

WRIT PETITION No. 10740 of 2016

¶23

Date: 15.12.2022

¶24

KSN

Pathuri Subbaiah, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathuri Subbaiah, v. 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

Shaik Sameer Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Paladugu Bharath, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Azimunnisa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R.Venkata Swamy, Chittoor Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 3 Ors.

A.Krishna Raju Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,and 3

A.Ramesh and 6 Others Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Its Prl.Secretary and 5 Others