Allowed

Koneti Ramakotaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC2 Dec 2010WP/9607/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court allowed a writ petition directing the sub-registrar to register a sale deed. The court held that revenue entries alone are insufficient to claim land is Government property. The judgment mandated registration subject to complying with the Registration and Stamp Acts, allowing the State to assert title separately if no other case exists.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Respondent No.4 directed to receive and register the sale deed, subject to compliance with the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. State permitted to assert t

Koneti Ramakotaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.9607 of 2010

¶3

DT.02.12.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Koneti Ramakotaiah and another

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Sitaram Chaparla

¶11

Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue

¶12

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside letter, dated 22.03.2010, and letter, dated 20.04.2005, of respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively, and consequently, direct respondent No.4 to receive and register the sale deed, dated 30.03.2010, in respect of land comprised in Survey No.2213/2 of North Addanki Village.

¶15

The above-mentioned document presented for registration was returned by respondent No.4 by addressing letter, dated 03.04.2010

¶16

detailing reasons for refusal to register the same. The ground on which the registration was refused was that in the letter, dated 20.04.2005, addressed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is mentioned that the land in question belongs to the Government.

¶17

In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that as per entry in RSR Register, an extent of Acs.9.39 cents comprised in Survey No.2213 was classified as Government Dry (AW) and following sub-divisions of the said survey number, an extent of Acs.6.20 in Survey No.2213/1 was classified as AW and Acs.3.19 cents in Survey No.2213/2 was classified as patta land. That during the further sub-division taken place in the year 1994, Survey No.2213 was sub divided with sub division Nos.1 to 6 and that in a subsequent sub division held in the year 2004, further entries were recorded. It is, however, admitted in the counter affidavit that an extent of 532 ¼ sq.yards was sold by one Mahaboob Basha to petitioner No.1 on 21.03.2003 under a registered sale deed.

¶18

From the above-noted facts, it is evident that the sole basis for the respondents for treating the land in question as belonging to the Government is an entry in the RSR Register. This Court in Syed Munaf and others v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa^[1] , while dealing with similar plea raised on behalf of the Government, held as under:

¶19

“In the present case, except for stating that entries in the Village Account R.S.R. of Pemmadapalle Village indicate the land in Survey No.364 as Government land, there is no other basis for the revenue authorities to stake a claim over the lands. To the contrary, the evidence on record, being registered transactions dating back to 1933, clearly negates the unilateral claim of the revenue authorities that this land is Government land. It is of course for the Government to assert and prove its title if it chooses to do so, in a properly constituted proceeding before the appropriate forum in accordance

¶20

with law. Without doing so, it is not open to the revenue authorities or the registration authorities to deny persons claiming rights over such land on the basis of mere revenue entries. The action of the respondents in treating the subject land as Government land and the action of the registration authorities in refusing to receive and register documents in respect of this land is therefore unsustainable in law. I find support for my view in the Judgments of this Court in P.Suresh

¶21

v. A.P. State and other s^[2] ; K.M.Kamulla Basha v. District Collector, Chittoo r^[3] ; Meda Subbarayudu v. Sub-Registrar, Rayachot y^[4] and S.Zakhir v. District Collector, Anantapu r^[5] . ”

¶22

In my opinion, the reasoning contained in the above reproduced order squarely applies to the present case as well. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.4 is directed to receive and register the document presented by the petitioners, subject to their complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. This order, however, does not prevent the respondents from asserting their title before appropriate forum at their option.

¶23

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.12396 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶24

(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶25

Date: 02.12.2010. VGB

¶26

[1] W.P.No.6067 of 2010, dated 02.07.2010 [2] 2009 (3) ALD 802 [3] W.P.Nos.27249 & 28393 of 2007 dated 16.02.2009 [4] W.P.No.11675 of 2008 dated 30.07.2008 [5] W.P.No.19419 of 2008 dated 16.02.2009

Koneti Ramakotaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koneti Ramakotaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Papireddigari Yashodamma Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

T.Laxmi Bai Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Principal

Sk. Vasantha Vs TheMandal Revenue Officer

N. Aseervadam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S. Upesh Singh Vs The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Nampally

M/s. Stanley Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh