Alva Chandrasekhar 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 an appropriate Writ, order, or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the order passed by respondent No.2 vide Endorsement No.80808/18/E1, dated 03.07.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, exceeding his jurisdiction, without authority of law and violative of the provisions of the Registration Act. 1908 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to denotify or delete the land

¶19

2

¶20

VS,J W.P.No.31953 of 2018

¶21

admeasuring Ac.0.80 1/2 cents situated in Sy. No. 223/2P, of Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam from the list of lands under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 and further direct respondent No.3 and his subordinates to receive the documents submitted by petitioner in respect of the said land admeasuring Ac.0.80 1/2 cents situated in Sy. No. 223/2P, of Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam without reference to the list of lands under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, for registration of sale deed on compliance of other provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct respondent No.3 and his subordinates to receive the documents submitted by petitioner in respect of the said land admeasuring Ac.0.80 1/2 cents situated in Sy. No. 223/2P, of Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam without reference to the list of lands under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, for registration of sale deed on compliance of other provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.CH VENKATA CHALLA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

VS,J W.P.No.31953 of 2018

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶33

“….to issue an appropriate Writ, order, or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the order passed by respondent No.2 vide Endorsement No.80808/18/E1, dated 03.07.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, exceeding his jurisdiction, without authority of law and violative of the provisions of the Registration Act. 1908 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to denotify or delete the land admeasuring Ac.0.80 1/2 cents situated in Sy. No. 223/2P, of Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam from the list of lands under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 and further direct respondent No.3 and his subordinates to receive the documents submitted by petitioner in respect of the said land admeasuring Ac.0.80 1/2 cents situated in Sy. No. 223/2P, of Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam without reference to the list of lands under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, for registration of sale deed on compliance of other provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and to pass….”

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶35

The petitioner and four others are the joint owners of the land totally admeasuring 3,896.13 Sq. yards, equivalent to Ac.0.80½ cents, having jointly purchased the same from their vendors under three registered sale deeds bearing document Nos. (1) 3646/2011, dated 28.04.2011, to an extent of 1,298.71 Sq. yards; (2) 3647/2011, dated 28.04.2011, to an extent of 1,298.71

¶36

4

¶37

VS,J W.P.No.31953 of 2018

¶38

Sq. yards; and (3) 3648/2011, dated 28.04.2011, to an extent of 1,298.71 Sq. yards, in all totaling 3,896.13 Sq. yards, all covered by Sy.No.223/2P, situated at Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

¶39

The petitioners' case is that the petitioners' vendors' grandfather, by name Bypalli Rajanna, purchased the property to an extent of Ac.3.22 cents, along with Bypalli Rammurthy, under registered sale deed bearing Document No.1161/1920, dated 04.10.1920. The said extent of land is situated in Survey No.87 (old), which was under the Estate, and its corresponding new survey number is 223/2P.

¶40

The case of the petitioners is that, in the revenue records, Survey No.87 (old), now corresponding to Survey No.223/2P, was mentioned as Government land (Gayalul). As such, the petitioners' vendors, i.e., the legal heirs of Bypalli Tatayya Patrudu, the elder son, filed a case before the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, along with a delay condonation petition in I.A.No.17 of 1985, which was subsequently numbered as S.R.No.11(a) 2/86 VSP. In the said case, the Settlement Officer confirmed the title of the legal heirs of Bypalli Tatayya Patrudu vide proceedings in S.R.No.11(a) 2/86 VSP, dated 01.08.1986.

¶41

The said proceedings were further confirmed by the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Director of Settlements, Hyderabad, who initiated suo motu proceedings by way of Review Enquiry under Section 5(2) of the Inams

¶42

5

¶43

VS,J W.P.No.31953 of 2018

¶44

Abolition Act, and the said case was numbered as R.P.428/87/B2. The revision proceedings were suo motu dropped on 15.06.1995.

¶45

As against the said orders, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), preferred a revision, and the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide orders in P1/374/2000, dated 11.06.2003, confirmed that the schedule land is a private land and that the vendors' predecessors are entitled to title over the subject land.

¶46

While things stood thus, when the petitioners intended to sell a part of the land, i.e., the schedule property, in favour of third parties, the registering authority refused to register the same. The petitioners were, therefore, constrained to file W.P.No.14109 of 2011, and the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to register and release the documents vide orders dated 13.09.2011.

¶47

In compliance with the orders passed by this Court on 13.09.2011, the respondent authorities registered and released the document but failed to register subsequent transactions on the same ground that the property was covered under G.O.Ms.No.583, dated 04.05.2005, issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as amended in 2007.

¶48

6

¶49

VS,J W.P.No.31953 of 2018

¶50

As such, the petitioners were constrained to make a representation on 24.04.2015 requesting the 2nd respondent to delete the said property from the list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Since the same was not considered, the petitioners filed W.P.No.36057 of 2017, and the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.10.2017, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representation made by the petitioners within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned endorsement dated 03.07.2018. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the present writ petition is filed.

¶51

No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader furnished a copy of the instructions of the respondent/Tahsildar vide Rc.No.199/2025/A, dated 27.06.2026, wherein, while admitting the facts stated by the petitioners, it is stated that it is noticed that the purported Settlement Order in S.R.No.11(a) 2/86 was issued without documentary proof that the predecessors of the claimants were lawfully inducted into the subject land before the crucial date, i.e., 01.07.1945.

¶52

It was further stated that the claimed land is not a ryoti land, being classified as Tank as per the pre-abolition records, and that the class/sort/taram and assessment were not mentioned in the Settlement Register. As such, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, vide letters in Rc.No.4873/2018/E1, dated 16.11.2022, 06.02.2023, and 21.03.2024,

¶53

7

¶54

VS,J W.P.No.31953 of 2018

¶55

directed the authorities to approach the Government Pleader, Visakhapatnam, and take steps to file a Civil Suit in respect of the subject matter.

¶56

Admittedly, no such proceedings were initiated challenging the orders which were confirmed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration in the year 2003. It can also be observed that, earlier, when the petitioners filed W.P.No.14109 of 2011, aggrieved by the action of the registration authority in refused to register a part of the schedule property on the ground that the property was included under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, however, in pursuance of the orders passed in the year 2011, the registration authorities registered the said property and released the same. Thereafter, when the petitioner intended to register the subsequent part of the subject land in favour of third parties, the same was refused by the respondent authorities on the ground that the property was covered under G.O.Ms.No.583 dated 04.05.2005, issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as amended in 2007, as such the petitioner submitted a representation on 24.04.2015 to respondent No.2 requesting him to delete the said property from the prohibited properties list since the petitioner's vendor's title was declared by the settlement officer vide proceedings in S.R.No.11(a)2/86 VSP, dated 01.08.1986, which was further confirmed in a revision preferred by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide orders in P1/374/2000 dated 11.06.2003 confirming that the schedule land is a private land.

¶57

8

¶58

VS,J W.P.No.31953 of 2018

¶59

Further, the Ryotwari Patta granted in S.R.No.11(a) 2/86, dated 01.08.1986, had attained finality and was confirmed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration by orders dated 11.06.2003, in such a case, only option left to the respondents is to challenge the orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, but they cannot raise the same ground once again after lapse of almost 20 years.

¶60

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the endorsement dated 03.07.2018, and the respondents are directed to de-notify the said property from the list of properties notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act by duly considering the ryotwari patta granted by the then Settlement Officer on 01.08.1986 in favour of the legal heirs of Bypalli Tatayya Patrudu vide proceedings in S.R.No.11 (a) 2/86 VSP, which was further confirmed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration by orders dated 11.06.2003. No costs.

¶61

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶62

__________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶63

Dated 08.07.2026 PBS

¶64

Whether the order is :

¶65

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

¶66

9