Allowed

Kadiri Nagajyothi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Mar 2022WP/6000/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court allowed the petition challenging the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register sale deeds. The properties, previously declared prohibited under Section 22A(1)(e) following a bank auction for unrepaid loans, had been sold to the petitioners via a previous High Court order. The Court held that once land is sold to a third party in execution of a mortgage award, it los

What did the court decide?

Allowed the writ petition; directed the 2nd Respondent to delete the petitioned property from the prohibitory list under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908; and directed the 5th Respondent to e

Kadiri Nagajyothi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.6000 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The challenge in this writ petition is to the refusal of the 5^th respondent to receive, register and release the documents presented by the petitioners on the ground that the subject lands of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.734-1, Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.734-1B, Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.734-1C and Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.734-1A of Utkur Village fields, Chintha Kommadinne Mandal, YSR District were included in the prohibitory properties list maintained under Section 22A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus in this regard to the respondents.

¶4

2. The petitioners’ case succinctly is thus:

¶5

(a) The subject lands were assigned in favour of (1) Mr. S.Vijaya Bhaskar, S/o. Chinna Subbaiah (2) S.Raja Sekar Rao, S/o. Subbaiah and (3) K.Sankaraiah, S/o. Subbaiah respectively. Thereafter the original assignees had availed loan by mortgaging the subject land with the District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., YSR Kadapa District for agricultural purpose and failed to repay the loan. Due to non-payment of loan, the subject land was auctioned by the District Co-operative Central Bank, Kadapa through E.P.No.461/2001-02, E.P.No.468/200102, E.P.No.2678/2001-02 and E.P.No.2679/2001-02 dated 12.04.2002. In the said auction, one Kadiri Nagendra Prasad, the father-in-law of 1^st

¶6

¶7

petitioner, purchased the subject land in auction and obtained Sale Certificate in Form-10, dated 22.05.2002.

¶8

(b) Subsequently, when the said Kadiri Nagendra Prasad proposed to sell the subject land in favour of the petitioners, the 5^th respondent herein refused to register the documents on the ground that subject lands were assigned lands and therefore, the said Kadiri Nagendra filed W.P.No.14264 of 2010 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to declare the action of 5^th respondent in refusing to entertain the sale deeds for registration of the land as illegal and arbitrary, and also filed W.P.No.18818/2010 to declare the action of 5^th respondent in refusing to entertain the sale deed for the land of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.734/1 of Utkur village fields, Chinthakommadinne Mandal, YSR District as arbitrary and illegal. Those writ petitions were allowed basing on the decision in The Sub-Registrar v. K.Guravaiah¹ vide orders dated 16.07.2010 and 06.08.2010 respectively with a direction to respondent No.5 to register the sale deeds for the subject lands.

¶9

(c) Thereafter, Kadiri Nagendra Prasad sold the subject lands in favour of the petitioners through Sale Deeds dated 02.11.2010 and 03.09.2012 registered as document Nos.4410/2010, 7892/2012, 7893/2012 and 7894/2012 respectively and since then the petitioners were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands.

¶10

1 2009 (3) ALT 85

¶11

¶12

(d)The further case of the petitioners is that when the petitioners intends to alienate the property and approached the 5^th respondent, he refused to receive and register the document on the same ground that the land is included in the prohibitory properties list maintained under Section 22A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908 and that it was a dotted land.

¶13

Hence, the writ petition.

¶14

3. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents.

¶15

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would strenuously argue that in spite of the decision in K. Guravaiah’s case (supra 1), still the 5^th respondent refused to receive and register the document which is illegal and amounts to contempt of court’s order.

¶16

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue tried to defend the action of the respondents on the ground that since the property was included in the prohibitory properties list under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, the 5^th respondent was right in rejecting the request of the petitioners.

¶17

6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow?

¶18

¶19

7. Point: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. The Sale Deeds dated 02.11.2010 and 03.09.2012 executed by Kadiri Nagendra Prasad in favour of the writ petitioners shows that the vendor purchased the property during the public auction in E.P.No.461/2001-02, E.P.No.468/2001-02, E.P.No.2678/2001-02 and E.P.No.2679/2001-02 conducted at the instance of the District Cooperative Central Bank, Kadapa. When the said Kadiri Nagendra Prasad proposed to sell the property in favour of the writ petitioners and presented the Sale Deeds, the 5^th respondent refused to receive and register the same and hence, he filed W.P.Nos.14264/2010 and 18818/2010 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the said writ petitions were allowed on 16.07.2010 and 06.08.2010 respectively basing on the decision in K. Guravaiah’s case (supra 1). In the said decision the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh made it clear that mortgage created in favour of the bank by the original assignee of the land is just, proper and legal and the assignee of the land can raise money by mortgaging the land so as to develop the land or to do some other better financial activity. It is further observed that if mortgage money is not repaid, the sections provided in the Transfer of Property Act would naturally follow. If the assigned land were purchased by the 3^rd parties in execution of award, it loses its character of assigned land and the Sub Registrar cannot refuse to register the documents. Ultimately, the writ petitions were allowed and Kadiri Nagendra Prasad executed the Sale Deeds in favour of the writ

¶20

¶21

petitioners. Now, when the writ petitioners propose to sell the property in favour of the 3^rd parties, the similar objection is taken by 5^th respondent stating that the property was included in the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22A of the Registration Act. The said objection, in the light of the clear pronunciation of law by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is quite preposterous besides being contemptuous.

¶22

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents, particularly the 2^nd respondent, is directed to delete the petition mentioned property from the prohibitory properties list maintained under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 and the 5^th respondent is directed to receive, register and release the documents presented by the petitioners, if it is otherwise in order, expeditiously. No costs.

¶23

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

¶24

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶25

10.03.2022 MVA

Kadiri Nagajyothi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadiri Nagajyothi, 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

K J Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kambhampati Soujanya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Maddila Papayyamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Devarinti Rami Reddy (Died) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kadari Apparao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Matta Malleshwara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh