Allowed

Inakanti Yugandhar v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Feb 2024WA/126/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against dismissal of writ petitions challenging refusal to register three sale agreements on ground the properties were in the Section 22-A prohibitory list. Holding that respondents failed to show inclusion was by authorities specified in the guidelines, the Division Bench set aside the dismissals and remanded the writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 09.01.2024 in W.P.Nos.33508, 33510 & 33620 of 2023 set aside; writ petitions remanded to learned Single Judge; no costs.

Inakanti Yugandhar Vs the State of Ap — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH TAHKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶3

WRIT APPEAL Nos.124, 125 & 126 of 2024 (Through physical mode)

¶4

Between:

¶5

Inakanti Yugandhar, S/o.Gopalaiah, Aged 43 years, Korlagunta, Tirupathi Town, Tirupathi Urban, Chittoor District.

¶6

…Appellant (in all Writ Appeals)

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Stamps & Registration), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District & 4 others. …Respondents ( in all Writ Appeals) Counsel for the Appellant :Sri Sitaram Chaparla, appearing for Sri Kolluri Arjun Chowdary Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 :G.P for Stamps & Registration Counsel for respondent No.2 : G.P for Endowments

¶9

¶10

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. Nos.124,125&126 of 2024

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

Dt:09.02.2024

¶13

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

¶14

Heard Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel appearing for Sri Kolluri Arjun Chowdary learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, appearing for respondents 1, 3 to 5 and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for respondent No.2.

¶15

The same appellant has filed these three Writ Appeals. The Writ Appeals relate to the same question of law and the facts of all the three cases are similar. As such, the three appeals are being disposed of, by way of this common order with the consent of the parties.

¶16

The appellant had entered into agreements of sale, dated 11.09.2023, for three separate plots of land in Sy.No.9/2B1 of Chinthalachenu Residential Area, Tirupathi Municipal Corporation and had presented them, for registration, before the 5^th respondent. Upon such presentation, the 5^th respondent had refused to register the agreements of sale on the ground that the properties in question had been included in the prohibitory list, maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, and as such, no document can be registered in relation to the properties.

¶17

¶18

HCJ&RRR,J

¶19

W.A. Nos.124,125&126 of 2024

¶20

Aggrieved by the said conduct of the 5^th respondent, the appellant moved this Court by way of W.P.No.33508, 33510 and 33620 of 2023 contending that the 5^th respondent could not have refused, registration of the agreements of sale, presented by the appellant, and relied upon the orders of a Division Bench of this Court dated 15.10.2019 in W.A.No.156 of 2019 apart from orders of single judges dated 30.07.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.12699 of 2021, order dated 25.07.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.22067 of 2022 and order dated 29.09.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.32182 of 2022. The leaned Single Judge after hearing both sides, dismissed all the three writ petitions by separate orders dated 09.01.2024. Aggrieved by the said orders of dismissal, the appellant has moved these three Writ Appeals before this Court.

¶21

Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel appearing for Sri Kolluri Arjun Chowdary would contend that the question of presentation of documents for registration, in relation to properties contained in a prohibitory list had been considered by a full bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh and the same had also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The leaned counsel would cite the decision of the full bench in Vinjamuri

¶22

¶23

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. Nos.124,125&126 of 2024

¶24

Rajagopalachary vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh¹ and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siri Nivasam Mutual Aided House Building Society Limited and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others² in support of his contentions.

¶25

In Vinjamuri Rajagopalachary vs. The Government of

¶26

Andhra Pradesh, a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of

¶27

Andhra Pradesh formulated the following two questions.

¶28

What are the pre-requisites that are to be satisfied for applying any one or more of clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act to any document dealing with alienation or transfer by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease etc. in respect of immovable property presented for registration?

¶29

Under what circumstances, the act of the Registering authority concerned (District Registrar or Sub-Registrar) in refusing from registration of the aforementioned document/s by applying any one or more of the prohibitory clauses (a) ti (e) under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act can be said to be justified?”

¶30

These questions were answered in the following manner:

¶31

“(i) The authorities mentioned in the guidelines, which are obliged to prepare lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d), to be sent to the registering authorities under the provisions of Registration Act, shall clearly indicate the relevant clause under which each property is classified.

¶32

(ii) Insofar as clause (a) is concerned, the concerned District Collectors shall also indicate the statute under which a transaction and its registration is prohibited.

¶33

1 2016 (1) ALT 550

¶34

2 (2018) 16 SCC 786

¶35

¶36

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. Nos.124,125&126 of 2024

¶37

Further in respect of the properties covered under clause (b), they shall clearly indicate which of the Governments own the property.

¶38

(iii) Insofar as paragraphs (3) and (4) in the Guidelines, covering properties under clause (c) and (d) are concerned, the authorities contemplated therein shall also forward to the registering authorities, along with lists, the extracts of registers/gazette if the property is covered by either endowment or wakf, and declarations/orders made under the provisions of Ceiling Acts if the property is covered under clause (d).

¶39

(iv) The authorities forwarding the lists of properties/lands to the registering authority shall also upload the same to the website of both the Governments, namely igrs.ap.gov.in of the State of Andhra Pradesh and registration. Telangana.gov.in of the State of Telangana. If there is any change in the website, the State Governments shall indicate the same to all concerned, may be by issuing a press note or an advertisement in prominent daily newspapers.

¶40

(v) No notification, contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 22-A, is necessary with respect to the properties falling under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A.

¶41

(vi) The properties covered under clause (e) of Section 22-A shall be notified in the official gazette of the State Governments and shall be forwarded, along with the list of properties, and a copy of the relevant notification/gazette, to the concerned registering authorities under the provisions of Registration Act and shall also place the said notification/gazette on the aforementioned websites of both the State Governments. The Registering authorities shall make available a copy of the Notification/Gazette on an application made by an aggrieved party.

¶42

(vii) The registering authorities would be justified in refusing registration of documents in respect of the properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22A provided the authorities contemplated under the guidelines, as aforementioned, have communicated the lists of properties prohibited under these clauses.

¶43

(viii) The authorities concerned, which are obliged to furnish the lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of subsection (1) of Section 220A, and the Registering Officers concerned shall follow the Guidelines scrupulously.

¶44

¶45

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. Nos.124,125&126 of 2024

¶46

(ix) It is open to the parties to a document, if the relevant property/land finds place in the list of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, to apply for its deletion from the list or modification thereof, to the concerned authorities as provided for in the guidelines. The concerned authorities are obliged to consider the request in proper perspective and pass appropriate order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the application and make its copy available to the concerned party.

¶47

(x) The redressal mechanism under Section 22-A(4) shall be before the Committees to be constituted by respective State Governments as directed in paragraph-35.1 above. The State Governments shall constitute such committees within eight weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.

¶48

(xi) Apart from the redressal mechanism, it is also open to an aggrieved person to approach appropriate forum including Civil Court for either seeking appropriate declaration or deletion of his property/land from the list of prohibited properties or for any other appropriate relief.

¶49

(xii) The directions issued by learned single Judges in six judgments referred to above or any other judgments dealing with the provisions of Section 22-A, if are inconsistent with the observations made or directions issued in this judgment, it is made clear that the observations made and directions issued in this judgment shall prevail and would be binding on the parties including the registering authorities under the Registration Act or Government officials or the officials under the Endowments Act, Wakf Act and Ceiling Acts.

¶50

(xiii) If the party concerned seeks extracts of the list/register/gazette of properties covered by clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A (1), received by the registering officer on the basis of which he refused registration, it shall be furnished within 10 days from the date of an application made by the aggrieved party.

¶51

(xiv) Registering officer shall not act and refuse registration of a document in respect of any property furnished to him directly by any authority/officer other than the officers/authorities mentioned in the Guidelines.

¶52

(xv) Mere registration of a document shall not confer title on the vendee/alinee, if the property is otherwise covered by clauses (a) to (e), but did not find place in the lists furnished by the authorities concerned to the Registering Officers. IN such cases, the only remedy available to the authorities

¶53

¶54

HCJ&RRR,J

¶55

W.A. Nos.124,125&126 of 2024

¶56

under clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A is to approach appropriate forums for appropriate relief”.

¶57

This Judgment, was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its Judgment reported in Vinjamuri Rajagopalachary vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh. After considering the said Judgment had deemed it appropriate to remit the matters back to the Hon’ble High Court on the ground that some of the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court had not been parties before the Hon’ble High Court and it would be appropriate to remit the matters to the High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed as follows:

¶58

“We note that in all these appeals, registration has been permitted making it subject to the result of the appeals with a further condition that no further registration shall take place without permission from the Court. It is ordered that the registration already permitted by this Court shall be treated as a provisional registration subject to the result of the writ petitions now pending before the High Court. We make it clear that merely because a provisional registration has been permitted, the parties shall not claim any additional equity. We further make it clear that without express permission from the High Court, there shall be no further transfer. In order to avoid further difficulty to the similarly situated people, we make it clear that it will be open to them to approach the High Court and seek appropriate and similar interim orders regarding transfers during the pendency of the writ petitions.”

¶59

A conjoint reading of both the Judgments of the Full

¶60

Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh and Hon’ble

¶61

¶62

Supreme Court would make it clear that the Registering Officer cannot refuse registration of document in respect of any property whose details have been furnished directly by any authority or officer other than the officers or authorities mentioned in the guidelines set out under Section 22-A of the registration Act. The Full Bench of the High Court also put a further caveat that even when such documents are registered, mere registration of such documents would not confer title on the vendee/alienee if the property is found to be covered in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A (1) of the Registration Act, and it would be open for the parties to approach the authorities under clauses (a) to (e) for appropriate relief in such cases.

¶63

In the present case, the learned Single Judge by accepting the statement that the properties in question had been included in the prohibitory list, had dismissed the writ petitions.

¶64

This Court is of the opinion that the burden of demonstrating that inclusion of the properties in the prohibitory list has been done by the officers/authorities mentioned in the guidelines and only upon such burden being discharged, could the appellant have been non-suited. As such burden has not been discharged, by the respondent authorities, it would be appropriate to remit the petitions back to the learned Single Judge so as to give

¶65

¶66

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. Nos.124,125&126 of 2024

¶67

an opportunity to the respondent authorities to discharge the burden of showing that the properties in question had been included in the prohibitory list after the details of the properties had been furnished to the 5^th respondent registering authority by an officer or authority mentioned in the guidelines.

¶68

Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are allowed and the orders in W.P.No.33508 of 2023, W.P.No.33620 of 2023 & W.P.No.33510 of 2023 dated 09.01.2023 are set-aside and the Writ Petitions are remanded back to the learned Single Judge for necessary determination, as set out above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶69

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶70

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR ,CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶71

RJS

¶72

¶73

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. Nos.124,125&126 of 2024

¶74

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE &

¶75