Allowed

P.Usha Rani v. The State ofAndhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Apr 2024WP/5779/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that keeping assigned land mortgaged to a cooperative bank on the prohibited list after valid auction sale is illegal and arbitrary. Court directed relief: liberty to apply to District Collector for deletion from prohibited list, after which Sub-Registrar shall process the document.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to apply to District Collector for deletion of the property from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22A(1)(a); upon subsequent intimation, Sub-Registrar directe

P.Usha Rani Vs The State ofAndhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5779 OF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

P.Usha Rani, W/o. Ramaiah, Aged about 54 years, R/o D.No. 6/52 Chengareddi Palli Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi^District. ...PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary,^Revenue

¶9

Department and Stamps and Registration Department,^Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶10

The District Collector, Tirupathi District.

¶11

The Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration^andStamps Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District

¶12

The District Registrar, Registration and Stamps^{Department,Tirupathi} Tirupathi District

¶13

The Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, Tirupathi District

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} be pleased to issue a Writ or direction, more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action on the part^{ofthe5‘^respondent} to register, and release the document presented by the petitioner in respect of Document no. P.373/2023 Dt. 27-11-2023 and the land in Sy.No.537/10, admeasuring Ac.0.96 cents, 537/8 admeasuring^Ac. 0.16 Cents and 537/12, Admeasuring Ac. 0.31 Cents, situated in Chengareddipalli Village, the hamlet of Karakambadi Panchayat,

¶16

Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi District is illegal, arbitrary, and against principles of natural justice and consequently, direct respondent No. 5 to set-a-side the proceedings No. P 373/2023 dated 27-11-2023. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 respondent No. 5 to register and release the gift deed, dated 21-11-2023 having assigned the pending document No. P.373/2023 dated 27-11-2023 for land in Sy.No. 537/10, admeasuring Ac.0.96 cents, 537/8 admeasuring Ac. 0.16 Cents and 537/12, Admeasuring Ac.0.31 Cents, situated in Chengareddipalli Village, the hamlet of Karakambadi Panchayat, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi District.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMESH representing^{SRIK.SRINIVAS} Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND

¶18

STAMPS

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.5779 OF 2024

¶23

P.Usha Rani, W/o Ramaiah, Aged about 54 years, R/o.D.No.6/52, Chengareddi Palli Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District.

¶24

... Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department & Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P and four others.

¶27

... Respondents

¶28

Counsel for the petitioner; Sri K.Srinivas

¶29

Counsel for respondents : GP for Stamps & Registration

¶30

O RD E R

¶31

Heard Sri Ramesh, learned counsel representing Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and^{learnedAssistant} Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration appearing^onbehalf of the respondents.

¶32

Page 2 of 7

¶33

SRS, J WP No.5779/2024

¶34

The writ petition is filed impugning the refusal endorsement dated 20.11.2023 passed by the 5^^ respondent to register the documents presented by the petitioner in respect of the property^of an extent of Ac.0-96 cents in Sy.No.537/10, Ac.0-16 cents in Sy.No.537/8 and Ac.0-31 cents in Sy.No.537/12 of Chengareddipall i Village, Hamlet of Karakambadi Panchayat, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0-16 cents in^Sy.No.537/8, Ac.0-31 cents in Sy.No.537/12 and Ac.0-96 cents in^{Sy.No.537/10of} Karakambadi Panchayat in the auction in E.P.No.123/10-11 and E.P.No.115/10-11 on 24.10.2011s. He would also submit^thatthe Chief Executive Officer, Renigunta PACS filed Execution Petition pursuant to the Award against one R.Gangaiah in respect^ofan extent of Ac.0-47 cents and one R.Chinnappa in respect^ofanextent of Ac.0-96 cents. Sale certificates were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner executed Gift Settlement and presented the^documentand the same was rejected by the 5‘^ respondent on the^{groundthatthe} property is included in prohibited properties list^{underSection22-}

¶36

Page 3 of 7 SRS, J WP No.5779/202^

¶37

A(1)(a) of Registration Act,1908. He would submit that the act of sub-registrar declining to register the document is contrary to the judgment reported in case of Sub-Registrar, Sri Kalahasti s. K.Guravaiah^

¶38

Learned Assistant Government Pleader Revenue and Stamps and Registration does not dispute that the petitioner purchased the property in auction, based upon the material available on record. He also does not dispute the ratio in the case of K.Guravaiah (referred supra).

¶39

In K.Guravaiah’s case Division Bench of composite High Court discussed about validity of such sale and finally^{concludedthat} when bid was knocked down in favour of petitioner is^confirmedand sale deed has been executed by the concerned Co-operative Bank, the sale is valid. When once the property was mortgaged to the Cooperative Society, which is not prohibited, sold in the auction for realization of debt due under the award, such transaction is exempted from application of provisions of Act No.09^of1977.The same view was expressed by the learned Single Judge of the High

¶40

^ 2009(2) ALD 250 (DB)

¶41

Page 4 of 7

¶42

SRSJ WP No,5779/2024

¶43

Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in N.Raja Reddy v^s the Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District (W.P.Nos.14743^and 14750 of 2007 dated 26.07.2007). Division Bench in the State of Andhra Pradesh v^s. Y.Prabhakar Naidu (W.A.No.921 of²⁰²¹ dated 03.01.2022) reiterated the same principle.

¶44

Division Bench of Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in State of A.P. vs. P.Usha Rani^ examined the issue based on the principle laid down in K.Guravaiah’s case and held that Section 5 of the Act 9 of 1977 prohibits registration and, sub-section (1) thereof, requires the District Collector to furnish the Registering^Officeralist of lands assigned in favour of the landless poor. Section 5 (2) requires the Registering Officer not to accept any document relating to the transfer, or creation of any interest in any assigned land as furnished in the list forwarded under sub-section (1).^{Section6ofthe} Act 9 of 1977 stipulates that nothing in the said Act shall apply to assigned lands held on mortgage, among others, by a Co-operative Society or Scheduled Bank or such other financial institution owned

^ (2018)6ALD397

Page 5 of 7

SRSJ WP No.5779/2024

controlled or managed by a State Government or Central Government, as notified by the Government in this behalf.

¶49

Thus, in view of the law declared in the judgements^referredto supra the assigned land mortgaged to Cooperative Bank or Society, if sold in public auction for realisation of the debt^dueunderthe award, the same ceased to be assigned land and it will^become private patta land on execution of sale deed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative societies.

¶50

Applying the said principle to the case at hand, the property though it was assigned, since the petitioner purchased the said property in auction, as referred to supra, keeping the property in list of prohibited properties is not only illegal but also arbitrary and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶51

However, since the property is kept under list of prohibited properties, the petitioner is given liberty to make application to the District Collector seeking deletion of the same from the list of prohibited properties under Sec 22A(1)(a) of the Act within a period of four (4) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of^{theorder.Onsuch} receipt of application, the District Collector shall delete the property

¶52

Page 6 of 7

¶53

SRS, J WP No.5779/2024

¶54

y j

¶55

referred to supra, from list of prohibited properties^{andintimatethe} same to concerned Sub-Registrar within a period four (4) weeks thereafter. Upon receipt of such intimation, the Sub-Registrar^shall receive and process the document subject to fulfilment of the provisions of Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act.

¶56