T. Siva Prasad Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

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/Order/ Direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not receiving and register the document by issuing a valuation to Plot No.257 of Sy.No.74/7 of Autonagar, Rengigunta Road, Tirupati as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction besides violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to receive and register the document presented for registration by them pertaining to Plot No.257 of Sy.No.74/7 of Autonagar, Rengigunta Road Tirupati forthwith.

¶17

2

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶19

1.SRINIVASULU KURRA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

3

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶26

“… to issue a Writ/Order/ Direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not receiving and register the document by issuing a valuation to Plot No.257 of Sy.No.74/7 of Autonagar, Rengigunta Road, Tirupati as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction besides violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to receive and register the document presented for registration by them pertaining to Plot No.257 of Sy.No.74/7 of Autonagar, Rengigunta Road Tirupati forthwith and pass such other orders…”

¶27

The grievance of the petitioners is that being the first time entrepreneur, the 2^nd petitioner purchased plot No.257 to an extent of 357.20 square metres situated in Sy.No.74/7 of Auto Nagar, Tirupati, Tirupati District, through document No.3688/2002 from her vendor, APIIC, Tirupati, out of total extent of Acs.26.00 cents. The 2^nd petitioner intended to sell away the said property to an extent of 335.05 square metres to the 1^st petitioner. Accordingly, an agreement of sale was reduced into writing in between the petitioners 1 and 2 on 29.08.2024 and presented the same for registration to the 3^rd respondent – District Registrar/SRO. The petitioners were served with an endorsement dated 16.06.2025, stating that the subject land is under prohibited list of properties and thereby valuation shown as zero.

¶28

The said endorsement dated 16.06.2025 was assailed before this Court on the ground that the property was purchased from the APIIC

¶29

4

¶30

and the revenue authorities have no right to prevent any transactions by the petitioners.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the order of this Court in W.P.No.125 of 2019 dated 06.03.2019. A learned Single Judge of this Court, relying on the orders in W.P.No.14439 of 2011 and W.P.No.1014 of 2014, has allowed the Writ Petition No.125 of 2019 holding that the properties were purchased by the petitioners from APIIC, Tirupati, and the Revenue Department shall not have any right to prevent any transaction by the petitioners. Now he would request to extent the same relief to the petitioners herein also and prays to direct the 3^rd respondent to register the document by setting aside the endorsement dated 16.06.2025.

¶32

The 3^rd respondent has filed counter. As seen from the said counter, it is the contention of the 3^rd respondent that redressal mechanism under Section 22-A(4) shall be before the committees to be constituted by respective State Governments as directed in paragraph35.1 and it is open to the petitioners to approach appropriate forum including Civil Court seeking appropriate declaration or deletion of the property from the list of prohibited properties or for any other appropriate relief and the prohibition is intended to safeguard the interest of the Government as well as the Religious and Charitable Institutions, by preventing the unauthorised and illegal transfer of valuable properties of the institutions.

¶33

Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted the proforma for furnishing details of properties under Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, to substantiate that the Sy.No.74/7, situated

¶34

5

¶35

in Autonagar is classified as a tank and it is included in the list of prohibited properties and he therefore requests the Court to dismiss the Writ Petition on the above said grounds.

¶36

This Court in W.P.No.125 of 2019 following the orders in W.P.No.14439 of 2011 and W.P.No.1014 of 2014, allowed the Writ Petition, inter alia holding that the respondents shall not have any right to prevent any transaction by the petitioners therein vis-à-vis the subject plots purchased by them from the APIIC, disregarding the judgment in Vinjamuri Rajagopalachary and others Vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others reported in 2016(2) ALD 236 and the order in W.P.No.129 of 2019 had attained finality and no appeal has been preferred against the order in W.P.No.129 of 2019.

¶37

On perusal of affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is noted that the vendor of the writ petitioner has purchased the property from APIIC, as such, the judgment relied by the petitioner is sqauarely applicable to the contention raised. Hence, this Court allows the Writ Petition and directs respondent authorities to register the document presented pertaining to the subject property, i.e., plot No.257 to an extent of 357.20 square metres in Sy.No.74/7, and release the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 08.10.2025

siva

6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO