Allowed

M.Subbalakshumma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Oct 2022WP/9589/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a writ petition challenging the maintenance of properties in a prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The Court held that lands sold at public auction by a cooperative bank to recover a mortgage debt cease to be assigned lands, and the prohibition does not apply.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to delist the properties from the prohibitory list and register the documents presented by the petitioner within specified timelines.

M.Subbalakshumma Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

W.P.No.9589 OF 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to delete the petitioner’s properties from the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and further direct the respondent No.4 to receive, register and release the documents presented by the petitioner for registration.

¶5

2. As can be seen, it is the 3^rd round of litigation. Succinctly stating, originally the subject property in an extent of Ac.0.97 cents in Sy.No.504; Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.506/1; Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.495/2; Ac.0.39 cents in Sy.No.506/3 and Ac.1.85 cents in Sy.No.491/2 totaling Ac.6.21 cents of Peddapalli Village, Siddavatam Mandal of Kadapa District was assigned in favour of the petitioner. She mortgaged the subject property to Kadapa District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kadapa and when she committed default, the bank initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and award No.2036/2005-2006, dated 02.02.2006 was passed and the said award was put in execution vide

¶6

::2::

¶7

E.P.No.419/2005-2006. In the public auction the petitioner’s husband

¶8

M. Nageswar Reddy purchased the subject property and sale certificate dated 17.07.2006 was issued in his favour.

¶9

3. While so, when the said M. Nageswar Reddy, proposed to transfer the subject property to 3^rd parties, the registration authorities refused to receive and register the document on the ground that the Tahsildar sent a list of assigned lands to Registration Department and subject property is covered by the said list and hence registration cannot be effected. Aggrieved, the petitioner’s husband filed WP No.10934/2012 in the Common High Court of A.P. which was disposed of by order dated 07.04.2012 as follows:

¶10

“The only reason mentioned by the 2^nd respondent in the letter communicated to the 3^rd respondent is that the lands are shown as assigned in the relevant records. It is no doubt true that the lands are assigned at one point of time and that Section 22-A of the Registration Act as amended through Act 19 of 2007 prohibits registration of documents pertaining to assigned lands. However, the lands were mortgaged in favour of the Kadapa District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kadapa and once they were brought to sale, they loose the character of assigned lands. Such transactions are exempted under Section 6 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. In W.P.No.14750 of 2007, this Court took the view that once an assigned land was brought to sale by a Cooperative Bank, the prohibition contained

¶11

::3::

¶12

under Section 22-A of the Registration Act does not apply for them. The same was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.950 of 2007.

¶13

Hence, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.”

¶14

4. Pursuant to the said order M. Nageswar Reddy executed gift

¶15

deed dated 25.03.2013 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. When the petitioner applied for mutation of her name in the revenue records, the Tahsildar, Siddavatam Mandal accordingly mutated all lands but Ac.1.85 cents in Sy.No.491/2. On her representation, the Mandal Surveyor inspected the land in an extent of Ac.3.44 cents 491/2 and submitted report to the Tahsildar stating that the petitioner is in possession of Ac.1.87 cents in Sy.No.491/2. Even then the Tahsildar did not take action to mutate her name in respect of the aforesaid property. The petitioner’s representation to the RDO, Rajampet also did not yield fruitful results. Hence the petitioner filed W.P.No.11049/2017 before the Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh. A learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 28.03.2017 and directed the 2^nd respondent to complete the enquiry pursuant to the notice dated 05.01.2017 and take action in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said direction, the 5^th

¶16

::4::

¶17

respondent herein conducted enquiry and mutated petitioner’s name in

¶18

all the revenue records and issued pattadar passbook and title deed.

¶19

5. Now coming to the present writ petition, the petitioner’s case is that recently the petitioner approached the 4^th respondent to ascertain the market value of the subject property to register in favour of 3^rd parties. However, the 4^th respondent informed her that the registration of the subject lands is not possible because they are included in the

¶20

prohibitory list. The petitioner made a representation dated 19.02.2022 and the 4^th respondent informed her that the subject lands are included in the prohibitory list pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 05.05.2016 and pursuant to the proceedings of 2^nd respondent in POT/364/2016, dt: 10.03.2018.

¶21

Hence the writ petition.

¶22

6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri G. Ramesh Babu and

¶23

learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Stamps & Registration representing respondents.

¶24

7. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri G Ramesh Babu is that though initially the subject lands were assigned lands and prohibited from alienation under the

¶25

::5::

¶26

provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, however there was no prohibition for the petitioner who is the assignee to mortgage the assigned lands in favour of Kadapa District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kadapa to secure loan and accordingly she obtained the loan and when she failed to redeem the debt, the said KDCC Bank obtained award against the petitioner and brought the mortgaged lands to sale in the execution petition No.419/2005-2006 and in the said auction, the petitioner’s husband M. Nageswar Reddy purchased the subject lands for valuable consideration. Referring to several decisions viz., (1) Sub Registrar, Srikalahasti v. K. Guravaiah¹ (2) State of A.P. v. P. Usha Rani² and (3) Government of A.P. v. T. Krishna Murthy³ , learned counsel would vehemently argue that in all those decisions, the High Court of A.P. has categorically held that the lands which were assigned by the State can be mortgaged by the assignee in favour of the Central or State Government or any local authority, a cooperative society, a scheduled bank or such other financial institution owned, controlled or managed by a State Government or the Central

¶27

1 2009 (3) ALT 85

¶28

2 2018 (1) ALT 62

¶29

3 2018 (6) ALD 686

¶30

::6::

¶31

Government as may be notified by the Government in this behalf. Learned counsel would further submit that if the mortgager fails to redeem the debt, the mortgaged lands can be sold for recovery of the debt by the banks and other institutions and sale will be valid in such a case. On such sale of the land by way of an auction conducted by the bank, the property ceases to be the assigned land and losses its character as such and the auction purchaser gets valuable title over the property. Learned counsel would vehemently argue that in view of the above settled legal position, the subject property lost its character as assigned land once the Kadapa District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kadapa sold those lands in public auction and purchased by M. Nageswar Reddy, the husband of the petitioner. That was the reason why in WP No.10934/2012 filed by said M. Nageswar Reddy, the common High Court of A.P having regard to the established legal position, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent authorities to register the document of transfer presented by him. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner’s husband has gifted the subject lands in favour of the petitioner under registered gift deed dated 25.03.2013. Learned counsel would further argue that when again revenue authorities refused to mutate the petitioner’s name in the

¶32

::7::

¶33

revenue records in respect of some of the properties gifted in her favour on the ground that those lands are assigned lands, in the resultant writ petition No.11049/2017 filed by the petitioner the High Court of A.P. came to her rescue and directed the revenue authorities

¶34

to conduct enquiry and accordingly the gifted lands were mutated in her favour. In spite of the aforesaid background facts, learned counsel would lament, the respondent authorities kept the subject lands in the prohibitory list U/s 22A of the Registration Act.

¶35

8 . On perusal of the record, particularly the judgment in WP No.10934/2012 and WP No.11049/2017 and also the above cited decisions, I find considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the subject lands were originally assigned to the petitioner and as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No.9 of 1977) an embargo was created against transfer of those properties. However, it must be said an exception has been created under Section 6 of the said Act. The said section reads thus:

¶36

“ 6. Exemption:- Nothing in this Act shall apply to the assigned lands held on mortgage by the State or Central Government, any local authority, a co-operative society, a scheduled bank or such other

¶37

::8::

¶38

financial institution owned, controlled or managed by a State Government or the Central Government, as may be notified by the Government in this behalf.”.

¶39

9. Therefore, it is clear that assigned lands can be mortgaged with

¶40

cooperative societies and banks and it is needless to emphasize that in case of default, such societies and banks can realize the debt amount by sale of the property in the public auction. When once the lands were sold, they ceased to be the assigned lands and become private patta lands. This is the legal position enunciated in the above decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. As such, the revenue authorities are not empowered or competent to again place the subject lands in the prohibitory list. Such action on their part is violative of Section 6 of the Act 9 of 1977 and also the spirit of the above rulings. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶41

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and respondent authorities, particularly the 2^nd respondent is directed to take necessary steps for de-listing of the subject lands from the prohibitory list maintained U/s 22A of the Registration Act within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the proceedings to the respondents 3 and 4. Within three weeks from

¶42

::9::

¶43

receiving such proceedings from 2^nd respondent, respondents 3 and 4 shall receive, register and release the documents presented by the

¶44

petitioner for registration of the subject lands. No costs.

¶45

As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall

¶46

stand closed.

¶47

________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J