Allowed

Singam Mangamma and 15 Others v. the Govt of Ap. Revenue (Registration ) Dept. and 3 Others

Telangana HC14 Sept 2012WA/1147/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two-judge bench modified the Single Judge's order in a writ appeal regarding registration of conveyance deeds. The Court deleted the direction to include a clause about the land being a water spread area, holding the Single Judge lacked substance to impose it as the respondents did not deny the appellants' title derived from a regrant.

What did the court decide?

Deleted the direction in the Single Judge's order requiring appellants to incorporate a clause that the land is part of a water spread area. The order is modified accordingly.

Singam Mangamma and 15 Others Vs the Govt of Ap… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT APPEAL NO.1147 OF 2012

¶3

DATED:14.9.2012

¶4

Between: Singam Mangamma and others … Appellants And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Secretary, Revenue (Registration) Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and others … Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO.1147 OF 2012

¶7

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶8

This writ appeal is directed against the order dt.21.3.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P. No.11758 of 2011.

¶9

The appellants – writ petitioners filed the writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in not implementing the order dt.12.2.2007 passed by this Court in W.P. No.2445 of 2007 and not receiving and registering the conveyance deeds in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.10.38 gts., in Sy. Nos.61, 62, 63/1 and 64/1 of Malkajgiri Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently to direct the respondents to delete the above survey numbers from prohibitory list in G.O. Ms. No.647 dt.3.10.2001, and receive and register conveyance deeds in respect of above said land without reference to the G.O.

¶10

The appellants - petitioners 1 to 13 are statedly legal heirs and successors in interest of one Late Singam Ramaiah, who was granted occupancy rights certificate in respect of the land in question. The case of the appellants – writ petitioners was that they and their predecessors have been making attempts to execute the conveyance deeds from the year 2007 onwards. However, G.O. Ms. NO.647, dt.3.10.2001, stood in their way, since the lands in the survey numbers referred to above was included in that G.O.

¶11

Subsequently, said Singam Ramaiah, who was granted occupancy rights certificate for the lands in question, filed W.P. No.2445

¶12

of 2007 before this Court for a direction to the respondents therein to accept and register the documents for registration in respect of the lands in question by setting aside the said G.O. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12.2.2007 by the Hon’ble Single Judge directing respondent No.1 therein to receive the documents, that might be presented by the petitioner and process the same, without any reference to the said G.O.

¶13

It is to be noted that Andhra Pradesh State Legislature introduced Section 22-A of the Registration Act (for short, ‘the Act’), once again thorough A.P. Act 19 of 2007, which prohibits registration of any documents in relation to the lands owned by the Government, religious institutions, etc. No specific notification is required for this purpose. Though the said G.O. ceased to be operative, the information furnished therein can certainly be taken note of, by the registering authority.

¶14

The case of the appellants - petitioners was that the land was held by them for a long time and in fact the transferee of such land would stand on the same footing, as that of the transferor, in the context of the use of the land. Therefore, there is no difference, whether the land belongs to the appellants or somebody else from the point of view of enforcing the provisions as to use of the land.

¶15

Respondent No.3 in his counter stated that he gave a reply dt.18.4.2011, to the letter addressed by the General Power of Attorney of the legal heirs of said Singam Ramaih, that the lands in question are still in the prohibitory list, published under Section 22-A of the Act and registration cannot be done unless there is a de-notification by the Government. On receipt of such reply from him, the appellants - petitioners approached this Court.

¶16

The writ petition was heard out by the Hon’ble Single Judge and by the impugned order, His Lordship directed respondent No.3 to process the documents that might be presented by the appellants - petitioners. It was also directed that the appellants - petitioners shall incorporate a clause to the effect that the land in question is part of water spread area of an irrigation tank and that it shall not be put to any use, other than the

¶17

one, which is permitted under the relevant provisions of law.

¶18

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the Hon’ble Single Judge, the appellants – petitioners filed this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶19

It appears that the appellants are mainly aggrieved by the direction of the Hon’ble Single Judge in the impugned order, to incorporate the aforesaid clause in the conveyance deeds that might be presented by by them for registration. According to the appellants, the lands in question were never at any point of time a part of submergence area or an irrigation tank and therefore it cannot be said it is a part of water spread area of any tank. Therefore, the rights which were enjoyed by the appellants can be transferred in favour of the transferors.

¶20

It is also pointed out by Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, that with regard to the title of the lands in favour of the petitioners, there is no denial by the respondents to the averments made in this regard by the appellants – writ petitioners in paragraph 11 of their reply affidavit filed before the Hon’ble Single Judge, which read as under:

¶21

“…the lands referred to in the writ petition are inam lands and they stand vested in the Government as on 1953 and subsequently the same were regranted in favour of the occupants as per the provisions of the A.P. Abolition of Inams Act and the father of the petitioners 1 to 13 was granted ORC as such, the lands do not vest in the Government any more and from the date of regranting, the father of the petitioners and subsequently the petitioners are the owners of the property and as such the lands are liable to be deleted from the prohibitory list.”

¶22

We find substance in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants with regard to the title of the lands in question in favour of the appellants – writ petitioners. Even before us, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents does not join any issue with regard thereto. In view of that, we are of the opinion that the direction as given by the Hon’ble Single Judge to

¶23

incorporate the clause in the conveyance deeds that might be presented for registration of the lands in question, is without any substance and, in fact no averment was made by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the lands are part of submergence area of an irrigation tank. Even otherwise, whatever title the petitioners have the same will enure to the purchaser from the petitioners.

¶24

In the circumstances, we delete the direction in the resultant portion of the impugned order, which stipulates that the appellants – petitioners shall incorporate a clause to the effect that the land in question is part of water spread area of an irrigation tank and that it shall not be put to any use, other than the one, which is permitted under the relevant provisions of law in the conveyance deeds that might be presented by the appellants for registration.

¶25

The order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge is modified accordingly.

¶26

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

¶27

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶28

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 14.9.2012

¶29

bnr

Singam Mangamma and 15 Others v. the Govt of Ap. Revenue (Registration ) Dept. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singam Mangamma and 15 Others v. the Govt of Ap. Revenue (Registration ) Dept. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Sujatha Vs Smt. G Suneethamma

Smt M.Rizwana Khathnoon, Vs S.K.Khairun Bee

Smt. Sadaram Varalaxmi Vs The State Bank of India

P. Gangadhar Vs The Divisional Manager

D.Satish Chandra Bodhan Nizamabad District Vs Sharta Narsimhulu Adilabad District and 3 Others

M/s Visu Proteins Private Limited, Vs Government of India