Allowed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Dec 2022WP/3731/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar to issue a list of prohibited properties. The court held that only the District Collector is competent under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Consequently, registers were directed to accept deeds notwithstanding the Tahsildar's list.

What did the court decide?

Awarding relief in nature of Mandamus; directing Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to receive and register documents without insisting for NOC or referring to the prohibited list.

A.Ramesh and 6 Others Vs the State of Ap., Rep by… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.3731 of 2016

¶2

ORDER

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India seeking following relief:

¶5

“… to grant a Writ or Order more fully in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the acts of the Respondent No.4 in issuing the List dated 14.02.2012 in respect of Serial Nos.260 to 267 as illegal and violative of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and Stamp Act and violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and that GO.MS.No.307 Rev (Assignments-I) Department dated 06.06.2013 has no application and directing the Respondents 5 and 6 to receive and register the documents as and when presented in respect of Survey Nos.240/1, 240/3A, 240/3B and 240/3C of Ponnur Town and Mandal of Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, consequently direct the Respondents 5 and 6 not to insist for NOC from the Respondents 2 to 4 and further direct the Respondents 5 and 6 to receive the Deeds of Conveyance as and when presented by me and other Petitioners and grant such other and further reliefs as the Honb'le Court may deem fit pass such other further order or orders in the circumstances of the case… ”

¶6

¶7

Aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.4-Tahsildar in issuing list of prohibited properties dated 14.02.2012, in which the subject properties were included, the present writ petition is filed.

¶8

The main point to be considered in this case is that whether the respondent No.4-Tahsildar is having any jurisdiction to include or exclude the properties in the prohibitory list and communicate the same to the registering authorities. The State Government issued certain guidelines vide Circular Memo No.G1/19131/05, dated 14.09.2007. On perusal of the said Circular Memo, it is clearly evident that the District Collectors alone shall furnish the lists of properties prohibited under the statues of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 and the District Collectors alone are expected to forward it to the registering authorities.

¶9

In a similar issue in W.P. No.41454 of 2017, this Court held as follows:

¶10

"...Therefore, communication sent by Tahsildar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 by respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 is in violation of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Thereby, the communication of prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 by respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 is declared as illegal and

¶11

¶12

when it is declared as illegal, respondent No.5 is bound to receive and register the document in case no prohibited properties list was communicated by the competent officer i.e. District Collector in terms of Section 22-A of the Registration Act."

¶13

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court feels that the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in refusing to receive and register the documents, on the ground that the subject lands are included in the list of prohibited properties communicated by the respondent No.4Tahsildar on 14.02.2012, is arbitrary and without any jurisdiction.

¶14

Hence, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to receive and register the documents as and when presented by the petitioners, in accordance with Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, which reads as follows:

¶15

“(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2, and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.

¶16

¶17

(2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered.”

¶18

In view of the above stated reasons, this writ petition is

¶19

allowed by declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in including the subject properties in the prohibited list as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 are directed to receive and register the documents as and when submitted by the petitioners as per the provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, without insisting for NOC and without referring to the prohibited properties list communicated by the Tahsildar on 14.02.2012. There shall be no costs.

¶20

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

¶21

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶22

Date: 15.12.2022 ASH

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

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