Allowed

Kedam Ramanjulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Mar 2023WP/4504/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the refusal to register a sale deed. The court reasoned that prior findings established the land as private, not government-owned, and set aside an endorsement classifying it as waste, directing registration under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement dated 10.08.2015 was set aside, and the 5th respondent was directed to register the Sale Deed dated 27.07.2015.

Kedam Ramanjulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4504 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“ …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.5 in refusing to register the Sale Deed, dated 27.07.2015 (Doc.P.No.28/2015) for the land in an extent of Ac.1.43 Cents in Sy. No.931 and Ac.1.32 Cents in Sy. No.932 of Goran Cheruvu Village, Gaaliveedu Mandal, YSR District stating that the same is classified as Waste and Assessed Waste on verification of the Government lands in Proforma-III and hence the same is hit by Section 22-A (1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and well settled legal principles, apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.5 to register the Sale Deed, dated 27.07.2015 (Doc.P.No.28/2015) for the land in an extent of Ac.1.43 Cents in Sy. No.931 and Ac.1.32 Cents in Sy. No.932 of Goran Cheruvu Village, Gaaliveedu Mandal, YSR District and pass such other order or orders… ”

¶6

¶7

W.P. No.4504 of 2016 VS, J

¶8

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the lands in extent of Ac.1.43 cents in Sy. No.931 and Ac.1.32 cents in Sy. No.932 of Goran Cheruvu Village, Gaaliveedu Mandal, YSR District, which is a private patta land, as there are several sale transactions from the year 1950 and the same was in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner vendors, till it was sold in favour of the petitioner through Sale Deed dated 27.07.2015.

¶9

The case of the petitioner is that having recognized the possession and enjoyment of his predecessors in title, the revenue records were mutated and the Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds were also issued in their favour. Whileso, the 3^rd respondent issued notice dated 02.09.2011 in Form-1 stating that the petitioner's vendor had purchased the subject land in contravention of Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1977" and the same is liable to be resumed to the Government as per the procedure contemplated under Section 4 of the Act, 1977 and calling upon to submit his explanation if any within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

¶10

¶11

W.P. No.4504 of 2016 VS, J

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner is that the said notice dated 02.09.2011 does not contain the particulars i.e. on whose name it was assigned, when it was assigned and the date of the assignment. Further, the respondent No.3 failed to furnish the details of the assignment patta number and the date of assignment in the columns provided in the said notice and instead of that he only mentioned the land as Assigned Waste (AW) land. Though the subject land is purely private land, the 3^rd respondent initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 1977 and the Rules, 2007 which do not have any application in so far as the subject land is concerned.

¶13

Under those circumstances, the petitioner's vendor filed W.P. No.26061 of 2011 before this Court seeking to declare the notice dated 02.09.2011 as illegal and consequently to set aside the same and the said writ petition was disposed of on 22.08.2012 as follows:

¶14

“Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit explanation to the impugned notice within a period of two weeks from today. The 3^rd respondent shall take the same into account and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two months thereafter. It is also directed that in case any order contrary to the

¶15

¶16

W.P. No.4504 of 2016 VS, J

¶17

interest of the petitioner is passed, the further steps shall not be taken for a period of 30 days from the date of service of such order.”

¶18

Thereafter, the petitioner's vendor submitted his explanation on 04.09.2012 bringing to the notice of the 3^rd respondent that the subject land is not an assigned land and that the same is purely a private patta land and there are sale transactions from the year 1950 and that the notice issued to him does not reveal any particulars in so far as the assignment is concerned and that in view of the same, the initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 1977 and the Rules, 2007 is unwarranted and the same is contrary to the settled principles of the legal position laid down by this Court from time to time and requested to withdraw the further proceedings in pursuance to the said notice dated 02.09.2011.

¶19

In pursuance of the said explanation, the 3^rd respondent having considered the same, dropped further proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 02.09.2011, as there is no record to substantiate that the subject land is an assigned land. However, the 3^rd respondent declared the subject land as Government land and it is mentioned as 'Gayalu' against the land in an extent of Ac.1.43 cents in Sy. No.931 and

¶20

¶21

W.P. No.4504 of 2016 VS, J

¶22

there are 'dots' against the land in extent of Ac.1.33 cents in RSR vide proceedings dated 08.08.2013.

¶23

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner's vendor was constrained to file W.P. No.25387 of 2015 before this Court, which was disposed of as follows:

¶24

“… the reasoning and conclusion drawn by the

¶25

3^rd respondent that the 'dots' in the RSR indicate that the lands belong to the Government and also the classification of the land as 'Gayalu' in RSR as a conclusive proof of the Government Title is legally unsound and set aside the order, dated 08.08.2013.”

¶26

Thereafter, when the petitioner's vendor intended to sale the subject lands in favour of the petitioner through Sale Deed dated 27.07.2015 and presented the same for registration before the 5^th respondent herein, he entertained the same and assigned pending Doc.No.28/2015. However, he refused to complete the process of registration and to release the same stating as follows:

¶27

"The property affected in the Schedule of the document is in the prohibited property watch Register (PROFORMA-III-VERIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT LANDS) of Galiveedu Village, the Sy. No.931 with Extent Ac.1.43 cents

¶28

¶29

W.P. No.4504 of 2016

¶30

VS, J

¶31

is classified as "Waste" & the Sy. No.932 with Ext Ac.1.23 cents is classified as "A.W" vide Serial Nos.358 & 359. Hence registration of the document is Refused under Section 22(A)(1)(b) of Registration Act, 1908."

¶32

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the

¶33

order dated 28.04.2014 in W.P. No.25387 of 2013 has attained finality and further Section 22-A(1)(b) has no application in so far as the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, filed this present writ petition.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 has failed to file counter affidavit.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment reported in 2014(3) ALT 473, wherein under similar circumstances, in view of the contradicting stand taken by the respondents, this Court observed as follows:

¶36

"...179. In this case, initially proceedings under the 1977 Act were initiated. On the petitioner approaching this Court by filing W.P.No.26061/2011 to direct respondent No.3 to consider his explanation submitted to notice dated 2-9-2011 issued in Form-1 under the 2007 Rules framed under the 1977 Act 1977, respondent No.3-Tahsildar has taken up the enquiry, wherein he was reconciled to the reality that the subject lands were not assigned lands. Therefore, while dropping the said proceedings, respondent No.3, however, strangely went to the extent of

¶37

¶38

W.P. No.4504 of 2016

¶39

VS, J

¶40

declaring that the lands in question belong to the Government.

¶41

180. The impugned order is liable to be set aside for two reasons. Firstly, on the finding that lands are not assigned lands, respondent No.3 has lost jurisdiction to continue the proceedings. It was incumbent upon respondent No.3 to close the proceedings initiated under the 1977 Act. Instead of doing so, he has acted beyond his jurisdiction in declaring the lands as belonging to the Government. While exercising his powers under the provisions of the 1977 Act, respondent No.3 cannot exceed his jurisdiction by adjudicating on the title over the property like a civil court. Thus, the declaration made by respondent No.3 in the impugned proceedings that the title of the land is vested in the Government is without jurisdiction. Secondly, the reasoning and the conclusion drawn by respondent No.3 that the 'dots' in the RSR indicate that the lands belong to the Government is in the teeth of the conclusions drawn by this Court under Point No.3. Similarly, the reasoning of respondent No.3 that the classification of the land as "Gayalu" in the RSR is also conclusive proof of the Government's title to the lands is also legally unsound for the detailed discussion made and the findings rendered in this Judgment. Therefore, the impugned order to the extent of declaring the land as belonging to the Government cannot be sustained and the same is set-aside. However, the question whether the land belongs to the petitioner, or the same is vested in the Government, is left open to be adjudicated by a competent court in appropriate proceedings."

¶42

¶43

W.P. No.4504 of 2016 VS, J

¶44

On perusal of the material available on record, it is clearly evident that the petitioner had filed the documents since the year 1963 and on a perusal of the said documents it is apparent that it is a private land. The respondents without considering that, issued a notice under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1977 and having declared the land as Government Land and now passed the impugned endorsement treating the subject land as AW Lands is contrary to their own stand. Earlier, in W.P. No.25387 of 2013, this court has already gave a finding that the conclusion drawn by the 3^rd respondent that the ‘dots’ in the RSR indicate that the lands belong to the Government and also the classification of the land as ‘Gayalu’ in RSR cannot be considered as a conclusive proof of the Government title.

¶45

In view of the above observations, this Court feels it appropriate to allow this writ petition by setting aside the impugned endorsement dated 10.08.2015 and consequently, directing the 5^th respondent to register the Sale Deed, dated 27.07.2015 (Doc.P.No.28/2015) for the land in an extent of Ac.1.43 Cents in Sy. No.931 and Ac.1.32 Cents in Sy. No.932 of Goran Cheruvu Village, Gaaliveedu Mandal, YSR District, as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶46

¶47

W.P. No.4504 of 2016 VS, J

¶48