Allowed

Yadavalli Koteswararao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Dec 2022WP/30026/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court held that the District Collector alone is competent to furnish the prohibitory list of properties under Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. Consequently, the impugned prohibitory list furnished by the Tahsildar was set aside, and the respondent was directed to register the petitioner's document.

What did the court decide?

The 4th Respondent was directed to receive, register, and process the petitioner's document without referring to the prohibitory list furnished by the 3rd Respondent.

Yadavalli Koteswararao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.30026 of 2016

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the 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) of The Registration Act, 1908 in his proceedings in RCB/199/2012, dated 02.05.2012 thereby directed the 4^th respondent not to entertain in any registered deed of conveyances including sale for an extent 97.6 sq.yards in Door No.20-12-149 in Survey No.303/3 of Chirala Town and Mandal in Prakasam District 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 300A 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 such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶6

The main contention of petitioner before this Court is that Tahsildar is incompetent to furnish the prohibitory list of properties under Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Act and the District Collector alone is competent to include any

¶7

¶8

property or exclude any property from prohibitory list, published under Section 22-A(1)(b) 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:

¶9

„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‟.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4^th respondent to receive, register and process the document presented by the petitioner, release the same, if it is otherwise in order as per Section 71 of Registration Act, 1908, without referring to the Prohibitory List furnished by the 3^rd respondent/Tahsildar vide

¶13

¶14

proceedings RCB/199/2012, dated 02.05.2012. There shall be no costs.

¶15

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶16

______________ V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 16.12.2022

KGR/SSN

188

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.30026 of 2016

¶23

Date : 16.12.2022

¶24

KGR/SSN

Yadavalli Koteswararao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadavalli Koteswararao, 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

Pathuri Subbaiah, Vs 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

Sri.a.P.C. Nageswar Rao Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,and 14

Davvuluri Sreenivasulu, Vs The State of A.P.

A.Vijay Kumar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh