Allowed

Koyakonda Jahid Hussain, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Mar 2022WP/5120/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking mandamus to declare an order refusing registration of a Sale Deed illegal. The Court held that the property had lost its character as Government land due to prior auctions and sales. It directed the Registrar to delete the land from the prohibited list and register the document within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 10.02.2022 quashed; land deleted from prohibited list; Registrar directed to register and release the Sale Deed within four weeks.

Koyakonda Jahid Hussain, Vs The State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO Writ Petition No.5120 of 2022

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The petitioners implore for a writ of mandamus declaring the order of 3^rd respondent dated 10.02.2022 in Appeal No.4/2010 passed by 2^nd respondent confirming the order of 5^th respondent refusing to register the Sale Deed dated 08.08.2002 in respect of the land of Ac.1.12 ½ cents in Sy.No.585 of Rayachoty Village & Mandal on the ground that the said property is included in the prohibited list of properties under Section 22(A)(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908 as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction.

¶5

2. The petitioners’ case briefly is thus:

¶6

(a) Originally the property in an extent of Ac.1.12 ½ cents in Sy.No.585 of Rayachoty Village belong to the Government which was assigned in favour of Guljar Khan, S/o. Hyder Khan. The said property was auctioned by the Cooperative Society and subsequently after several transactions, one Venkat Reddy, S/o. Reddy and Gangi Reddy have sold the said property through Sale Deed dated 16.03.1981 vide document No.1185/1981 in favour of Kuna Krishna Devarayulu and the said Krishna Devarayulu in turn alienated the property in favour of one Jamal Khan, S/o. Dastageer Khan, vendor of petitioner, under a registered Sale Deed dated 01.08.2000 vide document No.2846/2000. The said Jamal Khan proposed to sell the property in favour of the petitioners and executed the Sale Deed dated 08.08.2002. However, the 5^th respondent kept the document pending registration as document No.P32 of 2002 and ultimately refused to register

¶7

¶8

the document vide his order dated 14.05.2010 on the ground that the said property is listed in the prohibitory list of properties under Section 22(A)(1)(e) of the Registration Act. Aggrieved, the petitioners’ vendor filed Appeal No.4/2010 before 3^rd respondent and without appreciating the facts and law properly, the 3^rd respondent dismissed the appeal.

¶9

Hence, the writ petition.

¶10

3. Heard Sri Bathala Ramesh, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration representing the respondents.

¶11

4. The petitioners’ case is that originally the property was the Government land which was assigned in favour of Guljar Khan and later the said property was sold in public auction by the Cooperative Society and the said property changed hands through several Sale Deeds and ultimately the vendor of petitioners purchased the same. He argued that in view of these facts the assigned land lost its character as Government land and became a private property. Therefore, placing the said property in the prohibited list of properties under Section 22(A)(1)(e) is untenable as so held by the Division Bench of the High Court of A.P. in Sub Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District v. K.Guruavaiah¹ . He thus prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶12

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration admitted that the subject matter in this writ petition is covered by the aforesaid judgment.

¶13

1 2009 (2) ALD 250 = MANU/AP/0707/2008

¶14

¶15

6. In that view, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment and the respondents are directed to delete the land to an extent of Ac.1.12 ½ cents in Sy.No.585 of Rayachoty Village & Mandal, Kadapa District from the prohibited list of properties under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908 and 5^th respondent shall register and release the document, if it is otherwise in order. The entire exercise shall be completed within four (4) weeks from the date of submission of document by the petitioners. No costs.

¶16

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶17

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 07.03.2022 MVA

Koyakonda Jahid Hussain, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koyakonda Jahid Hussain, v. The 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Papa Kotaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pattapu Naga Babu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Bhimireddy Papi Reddy Charitable Trust Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. J. Ammulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Rama Swamy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Leburu Sudhakar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh