Allowed

Bijivemula Siva Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, v. The Government of A.P. rep., by its

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Dec 2023WP/38677/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the refusal of a Sub-Registrar to register sale deeds based on a prohibition list furnished by a Tahsildar. The Court held that refusal is illegal absent a statutory notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The Court directed registration as the land was not in the statutory prohibited list.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the writ petition with directions to the Sub-Registrar to entertain the sale deeds for registration without relying on the unauthorized list furnished by the Tahsildar.

Bijivemula Siva Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT (Special Original Jurisdiction) . /W/ am Ik. THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBe411 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO: 38677 OF 2013 .

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bijivemula Siva Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged about^60Years Occ Agriculture, Chinnakesam Palli Village, Badvel Mandal,^{Y.S.RDistrict.}

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The Government of A.P. rep., by its. Principal Secretary,^Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶10

The District Collector, Y.S.R. District, Kadapa.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampeta Revenue Division, Rajampeta, Y.S.R. District.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R.District.

¶13

The Sub-Registrar, Badvel, Y.S.R.District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in including the land in an extant^{ofAc.0.99centsin} Sy.No.1265 and Ac.0.13 cents in Sy.No.1257/3 of Chennampalli Village fields, Badvel Mandal,Y.S.R.District in the Prohibitory Lands List as Government land and the consequential action of the respondent No.5 in refusing to entertain the Sale Deeds for registration basing on the Prohibitory Lands List furnished by the respondent No.4 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and settled

¶16

m ^ w~y tK \t i\ II

¶17

3< 3 A

¶18

principles of legal position apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the prohibitory iands iist in so for as the iand in an extant of Ac.0.99 cents in Sy.No.1265 and Ac.0.13 cents in Sy.No.1257/3 of Chennampalli Village fields, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R.District furnished by the respondent No.4 and also direct the respondent No.5 to entertain the Sale Deeds for registration for the same.

¶19

LA. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 48069 OF

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 5 to entertain the Sale Deeds for registration for the land in an extent of Ac.0.99 cents in SY.No.1265 and Ac.0.13 cents in Sy.No.1257/3 of Chennampalli Village fields, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R. District without referring to the Prohibitory Lands List furnished by the respondent No.4, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V. R. REDDY KOWURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : SRI Y. SUBBA RAO, ASST.GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

APHC010214392013

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3328]

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 38677/2013

¶31

Between:

¶32

1.BIJIVEMULA SIVA REDDY, S/0. NARAYANA REDDY,, OCC; AGRICULTURE, CHINNAKESAM PALLI VILLAGE, BADVEL MANUAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER

¶33

AND

¶34

1.THE GOVERNMENT OF A P REP BY ITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶35

2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR Y S R DISTRICT KADAPA, -

¶36

3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMPETA REVENUE DIVISION, RAJAMPETA, Y.S.R. DISTRICT

¶37

4.THE TAHSILDAR, BADVEL MANUAL, Y.S.R.DISTRICT.

¶38

5.THE SUBREGISTRAR, BADVEL, Y.S.R.DISTRICT.

¶39

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶41

1.VR REDDY KOWURI

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶44

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

ORAL ORDER:

¶47

Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Y. Subba Rao, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶48

The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:

¶49

“It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased^toissue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly^oneinthe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 4 in including the land in an extant of Ac. 0.99 cents in Sy.No. 1265 and Ac. 0.13 cents in Sy.No. 1257/3 of Chennampalli Village fields, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R. District in the Prohibitory Lands List as Government land and the consequential action of the respondent No. 5 in refusing to entertain the Sale Deeds for registration basing on the Prohibitory Lands List furnished by the respondent No. 4 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and settled principles of legal position apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the prohibitory lands^listin so^for as the land in an extant of Ac.0.99 cents in Sy.No.1265 and Ac.0.13 cents in Sy.No. 1257/3 of Chennampalli Village fields, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R.District furnished by the respondent No.4 and also direct the respondent No. 5 to entertain the Sale Deeds for registration^forthe same and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶50

¶51

FACTS IN BRIEF AS PROJECTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT t^ETITIONER:

¶52

The F’etitioner herein has purchased the land of an^{extentofAc.0.99} cents in Sy.No.1265 and Ac.0.13 cents in Sy.No. 1257/3 of Chennampalli Village, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R. District from one Sri Bijivemula Rama Subba Reddy and Sri Bijivemula Narayana Reddy under the Agreements^ofSale dated 29.07.1998 and 31.03.2000 respectively; that^{whenthevendorsofthe} Writ Petitioner failed to execute the sale deeds in favour of the Writ Petitioner, the Writ Petitioner was constrained to file two Suits bearing O.S.No.379 of 2003 and O.S.No.23 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, for specific performance of the above mentioned^{AgreementsofSale.} The Learned Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, by Decrees^{andJudgmentsdated} 25.11.2003 and 31.03.2004 respectively, had directed^{theDefendantstherein} namely the vendors of the Writ Petitioner to register^{thepropertyinfavourof} the Writ Petitioner; that on failure to comply with^{theOrdersofLearnedJunior} Civil Judge, Badvel in registering the property in^{favouroftheWritPetitioner,} the Writ Petitioner filed Execution Petition, seeking^{toexecutetheDecrees} and Judgments; that in the said Execution Proceedings,^{theLearnedJunior} Civil Judge, called for the valuation particulars through the Letter dated 02.08.2008 from the Sub-Registrar, Badvel - Respondent No.5; that the Respondent No.5 namely the Sub-Registrar, Badvel, addressed a Letter dated 07.08.2008 to the Learned Junior Civil Judge, stating that the Tahsildar - Respondent No.4 through his Letter in Ref.No.A/79/2007,^{dated03.04.2007}

¶53

¶54

■ :f

¶55

furnished the list of Government lands which are prohibited for being registered and that the entire extent of Acs.3.57 cents in Sy.No.1265 and Ac.0.13 cents in Sy.No.1257/3 of Chennampalli Village (agricultural fields) is also included in the Prohibited List; therefore, it is informed by the SubRegistrar to the Junior Civil Judge that the lands in the said Survey numbers are classified as Government land and therefore, the said lands in question cannot be registered.

¶56

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner further submitted that from the times immemorial, the lands are private lands and the said lands were in possession and enjoyment of the vendors and their predecessors^oftheWrit Petitioner from times immemorial and also that they^{hadvalidtitle.}

¶57

Insofar as the legal position is concerned. Learned^{CounselfortheWrit} Petitioner would submit that the Respondent No.4 has no authority to include the subject lands in the Prohibitory Lands List labelling it to be Government Land and that the Respondent No.5 namely the Sub-Registrar^{cannottreatthe} List of Prohibitory Lands as furnished by the Respondent^{No.4-Tahsildaras} being equivalent to that of the statutory Notification^{issuedunderSub-section} 2 of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. He further submits that only when the statutory Notification, as envisaged under^{Sub-section2ofSection} 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 is issued, only then the Registering Authority can refuse to register the document but not^otherwise. He submits that in the present context, there is no such statutory^{Notificationissuedunder} Sub-section 2 of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, the

¶58

¶59

Respondent No.5 (Sub-Registrar), basing on the list furnished by the Respondent No.4 refused to register the land in question. SUBMISSIONS OF SRI Y.SUBBA RAO. LEARNED ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR REVENUE APPEARING FOR RESPONDENT NOs.2 TO 5:

¶60

Sri Y. Subba Rao, Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 has drawn the attention of^{thisCourttovarious} averments made in the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.5 (SubRegistrar, Eiadvel). He would submit that consequent^{uponthedirectionofthe} Learned Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, the Respondent^{No.5hadaddresseda} Letter to Respondent No.4 (Tahsildar); that in response^tothesaid Letter, Respondent No.4 furnished the list of Government Lands^{whichareprohibited} for registering under Section 22-A of the Registration^{ActtoRespondentNo.5} vide his Letter Ref.No.A/79/2007, dated 03.04.2007; and that in response to the said Letter, the Respondent No.5 addressed a Letter^{dated07.08.2008to} the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, informing him^{aboutthenatureofthe} subject lands as being Government Lands (as per the communication received from Respondent No.4). Learned Assistant Government^Pleaderhas also submitted that the Petitioner has not presented any document before this Respondent and if a document is presented, such document^{willbereceived} by Respondent No.5 and processed in accordance with^{theIndianStampAct,} 1899 and as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. He has further submitted that the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court prematurely

¶61

¶62

• >5

¶63

without presenting any document to Respondent No.5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would categorically submit that^the lands which are sought to be registered in favour of the Writ Petitioner^are in the List of Prohibited Properties or Assigned Lands. The lands^are assignedⁱⁿ favour^of the vendors of the Writ Petitioner.

¶64

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has submitted^{thattheissueof} presenting any document before the Respondent No.5^{bytheWritPetitioner} does not arise inasmuch as the Learned Junior Civil Judge, in the Execution Proceedings, has addressed a Letter to Respondent No.5 to furnish the valuation particulars through the Letter dated 02.08.2008^{forthepurposeof} registering of sale deeds. Learned Counsel for the^{WritPetitionerhastaken} this Court through various Judgments on the proposition that unless the Competent Authority has notified the List of Prohibited^{propertiesunderSub-} } section 2 of Section 22-A, the Subordinate Authority like that of Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, on their own cannot furnish any such information to Respondent No.5. Learned Counsel for^{theWritPetitionerhas} taken this Court through the documents filed along^{withtheCounterAffidavit} to indicate that on 14.01.2007, a Circular was issued by the Respondent No.2 - District Collector, Kadapa, drawing their attention^to all the MROs in the District to certain instructions contained therein in order to effectively protect the Government Lands. The said Circular would indicate that the assignments made by the Revenue etc., should be listed Village^{wiseandMandalwiseand} ; furnish that list to Sub-Register concerned duly obtaining proper

¶65

¶66

¶67

acknowledgment from the Sub-Registrar. The instruction No.(ii) of the said Circular, dated 14.01.2007 issued by the Respondent No.2 is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶68

“The attention of all the Mandal Revenue Officers in the District is invited to the references cited in which certain instructions were issued in respect of A.P. Assigned Lands (POT)^Act 1977. (Amendment Bill) Bill No. 35/2006 and requested to follow them scrupulously.

¶69

In this connection, the following further instructions^areissued to ensure effective action in protecting the Government^landsfrom the land encroachers and middle men who are resorting^tomake illegal registrations on Government Lands.

¶70

a. List out the assignments made — till the phase of^Land distribution and communicate the Survey Number, D.K.T.^No.name of assignee, date on which assignment was made. Village^wiseand Mandal wise and furnish that list to the Sub-Registrar^concerned duly obtaining proper acknowledgment from the Sub-Registrars^and file the same in their respective connected file, on permanent basis. ’’

¶71

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has further submitted that it is based on the said instruction vide Circular, dated 14.01.2007 that 'the Tahsildar, Badvel prepared such list and forwarded^thesame to the SubRegistrar, Badvel.

¶72

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Registrar/Sub-registrar would have the power to decline registration only when the Competent Authority has issued Notification under^{Section22-Aofthe} Registration Act. He would also submit that the Sub-registrar^wouldhaveno authority to decline registration based on list of properties in the prohibited list

¶73

¶74

if it is submitted to him by the Tahsildar in as much as the Tahsildar is not the Competent Authority as recognized under section 22-A of the registration act. 10. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has referred to a landmark Judgment rendered by the full bench of this Courtⁱⁿ Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary Vs. State of A.P., (Telangana & Andhra Pradesh) : (2016 (2) ALD 236)) : (2016 (1) ALT 550). He would refer to a Circular Memo N0.GI/19131/05, dated 14.09.2007 that deals with the Registration (A.P. Amendment) Act, 2007 (Act 19 of 2007) that amended Section-22A. He would submit that the Full Bench of this Court in Vinjamuri’s case has referred to this Amendment vide Circular Memo N0.GI/19131/05, dated 14.09.2007. He would submit that in the said Circular, it has been clearly stated that the Competent Authority to furnish the list of properties prohibited under the statutes to the Registering Officers having the jurisdiction over such properties is the District Collector whereas, in the present case, the District Collector, while exercising his statutory^{functionsunderSection-22-A} did not forward the list of properties prohibiting registration to the sub registrar. On the contrary, basing on a communication from the Collector to prepare such list and send it to the Collector, such list was shared by the Tahsildar to the Sub-registrar and the Sub-registrar forwarded such^{alisttotheJuniorCivil} Judge. Therefore, Learned Counsel would submit that basing on such unauthorized list sent by the Tahsildar, the Registrar cannot decline to register the document. In any case, the sharing of prohibition list by the sub registrar to

¶75

¶76

the learned Junior Civil judge was not even warranted^{becausetherequestof} the Learned Junior Civil Judge was to furnish the value.

¶77

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would also^{submitthattheratio} of the Full Bench in Vinjamuri’s case came up for consideration^beforethe Hon’ble Apex Court in Srinivas Multi Aided House Building Society Limited and Ors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. : ((2018) 16 SCO 786). Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would^{submitthatintheabove} mentioned case, the ration of the Full Bench of this^{CourtinVinjamuri’scase,} has been cited with approval. 12. In the light of the above submissions, he would seek^{adeclarationthat} the inability expressed by the Sub-Registrar is bad^{inlawinasmuchasthe} Sub-Registrar could not have placed reliance on the^{prohibitionlistfurnished} by the Tahsildar, that too in the absence of any communication^receivedby the Sub-Registrar from the District Collector as per^{thestatutoryprocedure.} above, the 13. Having considered the rival submissions noted herein following facts would emerge as being admitted; a. In response to the directions of the learned Civil^{JudgeBadhwel,<the} Sub-Registrar, Badvel (respondent No.5) had addressed^alettertothe Tahsildar, Badvel Mandal (respondent No.4).

¶78

b. The Tahsildar of Badvel had initially addressed a letter to the SubRegistrar on 29.01.2007 and another letter on 03.04.2007^(filedalong with the counter affidavit of respondent No.5). In the letter dated 03.04.2007, the Tahsildar has furnished a list of lands^whicharetobe

¶79

¶80

treated as Government lands on the ground that the^said lands are assigned lands and that the subject land is also part of the said communication dated 03.04.2007.

¶81

c. The official respondents have not supplied any prohibition^listwhichhas been notified under Section 22A of the Registration^Act.

¶82

This Court finds that it is a settled law that the properties mentioned in the prohibited list which is to be published as per the legal procedure under Section 22A of the Registration Act cannot be registered, until and unless such property has again been de-notified by the concerned^{DistrictCollector} after an enquiry and by following the procedure in^{accordancewithlaw.} If a property is mentioned in the prohibited list published^{underSection22Aofthe} Registration Act, even by virtue of a Civil Court decree, such property cannot be deleted so long as the said property is an assigned land. In any case, it is the District Collector who is competent to notify any^{landtobeincludedinthe} prohibited list under Section 22A of the Registration^Act. In the event that particular land is not included in the prohibited list, the Sub-Registrar is not entitled to resject the registration of a document by merely placing reliance on a communication from the Tahsildar. 15. The present facts would indicate that the Tahsildar^{didnotcommunicate} a prohibited list which is issued under Section 22A of the Registration Act. In fact such prohibited list would invariably be in the possession of the SubRegistrar/Registrar and when a document is presented for registration or a particular land is to be registered as a consequence of a decree passed by the

¶83

¶84

Civil Court, the Registrar and Sub-Registrar is duty bound to only verify from such prohibited list whether the subject property is found^{intheprohibited;list} that was prepared under Section 22A of the Registration^Actornot. If such subject land is not included in such prohibited list, the Registrar has no other option but to registrar the same by processing the said document under Section 71 of the Registration Act. The Circular dated^{14.01.2007reliedonby} the Official Respondents has neither the legal sanctity^{norhastheforceof} law. Therefore, neither the Tahsildar nor the Sub-Registrar can press the said Circular dated 14.01.2007 into service for the purpose of rejecting the request of the Writ F’etitioner.

¶85

This Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of the above observations and directions. No order as to costs. 17. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in^{termsofthisorder.} That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above witness the Hon’ble Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur, The Chief Justice on this Thursday, The Twenty Eighth day of December, Two Thousand and Twenty Four.

¶86

Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶87

//TRUE COPY//

¶88

To,

¶89

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati,^Guntur

¶90

District.

¶91

1. The District Collector, Y.S.R. District, Kadapa. 3. The F^evenue Divisional Officer, Rajampeta Revenue Division, Rajarnpeta, Y.S.R. District.

¶92

1. The Tahsildar, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R.District. 5. The Sub-Registrar, Badvel, Y.S.R.District. 6. One CC to Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CCs to GP for Stamps & Registration, High Court^{of Andhra} Pradesh [OUT]

¶93