Allowed

D Ravi v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Aug 2023WP/11317/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a document. The Court observed that the property was deleted from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act by a government order dated 27.12.2018. The Court directed the respondent to register the document upon compliance with statutory conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement refusing registration is set aside. The petitioner is directed to produce proceedings, and the respondent is directed to register and release the document upon compliance with

D Ravi Vs State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUS’ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE | -O PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTi '

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 11317 OF 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

D. Ravi, S/o. Dampetla Surendra, Hindu, Aged about 23 years, O.No.5-157, B. Kottala, Mudigubba Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

state of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶11

The District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Anantapur Dist.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Chilamathur Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶14

The Sub-Registrar, Chilamathur, Anantapur District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 issue, a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5* respondent in refusing the registration of the document with endorsement Ref.P.No. 12/2018 in respect of the lands to an extent of Ac.2.75 cents in S.No.34 and Ac.3.17 cents in S.No.31 of Somaghatta Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Anantapur District without considering the proceedings D.Dis.FTS/E2/336/2014 dated 02.01.2015 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to law and violation of Section 22-A ( 1 ) of Registration Act and consequently direct the Sth respondent to receive the document presented by the petitioner and process for registration in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2.75 cents in S.No.34 and Ac.3.17 cents in S.No.31 of Somaghatta Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Anantapur District without reference to the list of prohibitory properties, uploaded by the 1®‘ respondent in respect of the subject mentioned property and process for registration.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶18

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 5th respondent to receive and register the document submitted by the petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of to an extent of Ac.2.75 cents in S.No.34 and Ac.3.17 cents in S.No.31 of Somaghatta Village, Chilamathur

¶19

referring the list of prohibitory properties uploaded by the 1 respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

‘9-

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ; AMARAVATI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 11317 OF 2018 1

¶27

Dampetla Ravi,l S/o Dampetla Surendra, Hindu, Aged about 23 years, D.No.5-157, ! B.Kottala, Mudigubba Mandal, Anantapur District. i

¶28

Versus i

¶29

The State of ?Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagdpudi,

¶30

Amaravati and four others.

¶31

... Respondents

¶32

Counsels for the petitioner : Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala

¶33

Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue and GP for Stamps and Registration

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the

¶36

Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief:

¶37

“... to issue a Writ, Order or a Direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5* respondent in refusing the registration of the document with endc»rsement Ref.P.No. 12/2018 in respect of the lands to an extent of Ac.2.75 cents in Sy.No.34 and Ac.3.17 cents in Sy.No.31 of Somaghatta Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthapur District without considering the proceedings

¶38

Page 2 of 6

¶39

SRS, J W.P.No.11317/2018

¶40

D.Dis.FTS/E2/336/2014 dated 02.01.2015 of the 2«respondent as iUegal. improper, unjust and contrary to law and violation of Section 22-A (1) of Registration Act and consequently direct the S« respondent to receive the document presented by the petitioner and process for registration in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2.7S cents in Sy.No.34 and Ae.3.17 coms m Sy.No.31 of Somaghatlo ViUage, ChUamathur Mandal, Anantapur istnct without reference to the list of prohibitory properbes, uploaded by the 1« respondent in respect of the subject mentioned property and process for registration and pass such other orders in the interest ofJustice”.

¶41

2. The grievance of the petitioner i IS that respondent No. 5 refused to registrar the document in respect of land to an extent of Ac.2.75 cents in Sy.No.34 and Ac.3.17 cents in Sy..No.31 of Somaghatta Village. Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthapur District on the ground that the properly is included in prohibited list under Section 22-A(l)(A) of Registration Act.

¶42

(a) In the affidavit it was contended that one D.Venkatamma, W/o Doni Gangulappa, is the absolute owner of the subject property. The properties were assigned to D.Lakshmanna vide Patta D.A.Dis. 1606/38 dated 17.07.1929 and P.Ramudu vide D.A.Dis. 1616/38. dated 17.07.1929. After

¶43

-.■5

¶44

SRS, J, W.P.No.11317/2018

¶45

Page 3 of 6

¶46

the .death of original assignees, the legal heirs sold half of the land to Pedda Gangappa and Balappa, sons of Narayanappa vide registered document dated 26.06.1965. The names of the legal

¶47

heirs of the Il assignees were mutated in revenue records. Purchasers’ names were eilso mutated in the revenue records. Petitioner intended to purchase the property from the legal heirs of the original assignees and approached the 5* respondent to know the market value of the properties in question and stamp duty for registration etc. The 2“^ respondent directed the petitioner to get ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from the revenue authorities. The 2®^ respondent in turn, sought for !l reports from the respondents 3 and 4. The 4**> respondent, inturn, sent report to the 3''‘’ respondent vide proceedings Rc.392/2014(A) dated 12.09.2014 recommending to issue NOC. li ■ • (b) Based on the reports of respondents 3 and 4, the 2"^ respondent issued proceedings D.Dis.FTS/E2/336/2014, dated ! 02.01.2015 recommending registering the documents in respect of the land in question.

¶48

! (c) The respondent having received the documents. • $ •• without verifying the orders of the 2^^ respondent, issued the

¶49

Page 4 of 6

¶50

SRS, J W.P.No.11317/2018

¶51

endorsement vide Ref.P.No.12/2018 refusing to register the document on the ground that the subject property is included in the prohibited list. Aggrieved hv oqw, t_ ggn a by the same, above writ petition is filed.

¶52

3. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶53

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions of the District Collector vhle Rc.No.l23S/2023(A) dated 02.08.2023 would submit that the properUes in question were deleted from Annexure-1 under Section 22(A)(1)(a) from the prohibited list vide D.Ms,ES/26395/2018 dated 27.12.2018. Copy of the same is handed over to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶54

5. In view of the above, the impugned endorsement of the S«. respondent vide Ref.P.No. 12/2018 dated 30.01.2018 is set aside. Petitioner shaU produce the proceedings before the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent shall register and release the

¶55

Page 5 of 6 i! I

¶56

SRSJ W.P.No.11317/2018

¶57

¶58

document if the petitioner compHes with the other conditions of Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act. • 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be nd order as to costs.

¶59

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

Stand dismissed.

To. 1.

I //TRUE COPY//

Sd/-K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶64

P®"^konda. AnJJitapur Dist. 4" Th! Mandal. Anantapur District •"'•6 Anantapur District. -^0 V Kanthrigala. Advocate [OPUC] *^*gh Court of Andhra Pradesh. 9. Two C.D. Copies Cnr gl

:<««

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/08/2023

ORDER

O’ **o««S5
S ?»AUI>2»23
CummZtMiion

¶71

WP.No.11317 of 2018

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

D Ravi v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Ravi v. State of Ap

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

Smt. D. Obulamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S T v Sampath Kumar at T Sampath Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Siddabathula Ksheera Sagara Sayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Veerla Munaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bali Reddy Venkateswara Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Basheerun Khatun Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh