Allowed

Chilakala Malakonda Reddy, Prakasam Dist and Anr. v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Dec 2022WP/4087/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court held that a Tahsildar lacked jurisdiction to include properties in the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the relevant endorsement, and directed the Joint Sub-Registrar to register the documents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; proceeds in L.R. No. RCA/808/2012 and endorsement No. Nil quashed; Respondent 5 directed to register documents under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Chilakala Malakonda Reddy, Prakasam Dist and Anr… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY. THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

V’

¶7

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 4087 OF 2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

Chilakala Malakonda Reddy, S/o. Venkateswamy Reddy Aged about 40 years, R/o. Polavaram village Kalagotla Post, Kanigiri Mandal Prakasam District. '

¶11

Chilakala Raman Reddy, S/o. Venkataswamy Reddy Aged about 35 years. R/o. Polavaram village Kalagotla Post, Kanigiri Mandal Prakasam District.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole.

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District.

¶17

The Tahsildar, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶18

The Joint Sub-Registrar, Kanigiri, Prakasam District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare (i) the proceedings in L.R. No. RCA/808/2012 dt. 13.2.2013 issued by the 4th Respondent herein in respect of lands in Sy. Nos. 499, 503 and 703 of Machavaram Majra H/o Sankavaram, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District and (ii) the Consequential endorsement No. Nil dt. 3.1.2015 issued by the 5th Respondent herein in respect of lands in Sy. Nos. 499, 503 and 703 of Machavaram Majra H/o Sankavaram, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and further (iii) direct the 5th Respondent herein to register the documents presented by the petitioners herein in respect of lands situated in Sy. Nos. 499, 503 and 703 of Machavaram Majra H/o Sankavaram, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction; more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus.

¶21

LA. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPMP. NO: 5422 OF 2015)

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 5‘ Respondent herein to register the documents presented by the

¶23

¶24

/ Petitioners herein in respect of the lands in Sy. Nos. 499, 503 and 703 of / Machavaram Majra H/o Sankavaram, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District without referring to the proceedings in L.R. No. RCA/808/2013 dt. 13.2.2013 issued by the 4th Respondent herein, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI M. R. S. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶29

Writ Petition No 4i087 of 2015

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

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

¶32

“to declare the proceedings in LR. No. RCA/808/2012 dt. 13.2.2013 issued by the 4^^ Respondent herein in respect of lands in Sy. Nos. 499, 503 and 703 of Machavaram Majra H/o Sankavaram, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District and the Consequential endorsement No. Nil dt. 3.1.2015 issued by the 5*^ Respondent herein in respect of lands in Sy. Nos. 499, 503 and 703 of Machavaram Majra H/o Sankavdram, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and further to direct the 5‘^ Respondent herein to register the documents presented by the petitioners herein in respect of lands situated in Sy. Nos. 499, 503 and 703 of Machavaram Majra H/o Sankavaram, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in . the nature ofwrit ofMandamus ” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the pt petitioner is the owner and possessor of land in an extent of Acs. 1.99 cents in Sy. No.503, Acs.2-67 % cents in Sy. No.703 and the 2"*^ petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring an extent of Acs.7.84 cents in Sy. No.499, Acs.3-98 72 cents in Sy. No.503 and

¶33

Acs. 1-33 V2 cents in Sy. No.703 respectively. The revenue records

¶34

2 VS, J W.P.No.23436 of 2015

¶35

¶36

i.e., 1-B Register, pattadar pass books and title deeds establishes possession of the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that when they intend to sell a portion of the subject property, the respondent No.5-Joint Sub-Registrar informed that the respondent No.4-Tahsildar vide letter bearing No. RCA/808/2012, dated 13.2.2013, communicated the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(l)(a) of Registration Act, 1908, in which the subject properties were included. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶37

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the facts mentioned in the writ petition.

¶38

On perusal of the material available on record, prima facie, it appears that the respondent No.4-Tahsildar included the subject lands in the prohibited properties list without having any authority which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law.

¶39

5. The only point to be considered in this case is whether the respondent No.4-Tahsildar is having any jurisdiction to include or exclude the properties in the prohibitory list. The State Government issued certain guidelines vide Circular Memo No.Gl/19131/05, dated 14.09.2007, ist Para of the memo is

¶40

¶41

VS, J W.P.No.23436 of 2015

• i

I j I

V .1

•?

relevant for the purpose of deciding the real controversy, which

¶47

reads as follows:

¶48

For the purposes of Section 22-A(l)(a) all the District Collectors shall furnish lists of properties prohibited under the statutes to the Registering Officers having jurisdiction over such property and also the District Registrar, Deputy Inspector General (R & S) concerned and to Commissioner & Inspector General ofRegistration and Stamps in .the proforma appended in Annexure I under proper acknowledgement. Subsequent additions, if any also shall be sent in the same manner. The list must be signed by Collector/Joint Collector of the District.”

¶49

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) of Section 22-A(l) of the Registration Act, 1908 and the District Collectors alone are expected to forward it to the registering authorities.

¶50

t. ■ I

¶51

Hence, the action of the respondent No.4-Tahsildar in including the petitioners property in the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and communicating the same to the 5* respondent-Joint Sub-

IJ TT»

VS, J

W.P.No.23436 of 2015

,\a

Registrar vide L.R.No.RCA/808/2012, dated 13.02.2013 is illegal, arbitrary and without authority as per law and without jurisdiction.

¶59

Hence, this Court also feels it appropriate to allow this writ petition by directing the 5*^ respondent-Joint Sub Registrar to register the documents presented by the petitioners in respect of the lands situated in Sy. Nos.499, 503 and 703 of Machavaram Majra H/o Sankavaram, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District, in accordance with Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 and without referring to the impugned endorsement vide Endt.No.RTI-I/2015, dated 03.01.2015.

¶60

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶61

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

¶62

shall stand closed.

¶63

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Prashant Kumar Mishra on this Wednesday, the Twenty First day of December, Two Thousand and Twenty Two.

¶64

S/d- T. MADHAVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SKTIOh^OmCER

To,

The Principal Secretary Revenue, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶69

2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District.

¶70

The Tahsildar, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶71

The Joint Sub-Registrar, Kanigiri, Prakasam District.

¶72

One CC to Sri M. R. S. Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC]

¶73

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶74

Two C.D. Copies Cnr Sdkr

HIGH COURT

DATED:21/12/2022

ORDER

WP.No.4087 of 2015

¶80

*5 1? AUG 2023
. Current Section

¶81

ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Chilakala Malakonda Reddy, Prakasam Dist and Anr. v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chilakala Malakonda Reddy, Prakasam Dist and Anr. v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

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

Bonthala Reddamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chitala Ramaiah S/o Venkataiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gundala Jayaramaiah, S/o Narasaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V.Srinivasulu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Uma Group of Companies, Eluru, W.G.Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Revenue,Guntur Dist.,and 4 Otrs.

Adapa Anandarao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh