Appeals challenging an order allowing sale deed registration for land acquired under Andhra Pradesh Land Purchase Scheme. Court held absence of prohibition clause entitles beneficiaries to sell and dismissed appeals.
Writ appeals dismissed; order directing registration of sale deeds by Sub-Registrar upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
W.A.Nos.1052, 1060, 1062 and 1066 of 2012
Date: 09-07-2013
W.A.No.1052 of 2012:
Between:
1. The A.P. Scheduled Caste Co-operative Finance Corporation Ltd, and another
… Appellants
1. The Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Stamps & Registration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
W.A.Nos.1052, 1060, 1062 and 1066 of 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana)
These writ appeals are filed aggrieved by the orders dated 13-07-2012 in W.P.Nos.21299, 21322, 21317 and 21316 of 2012 respectively, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court.
2. Since the issue in all these writ appeals is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, we refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition.
3. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1991, the
petitioners have purchased different extents of lands in different survey numbers in Kandukuru Mandal, Prakasam District, with the loan sanctioned by respondent No.4-Corporation under ‘Land Purchase Scheme’ introduced by Government of Andhra Pradesh, and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, the Government through G.O.Rt.No.492, Social Welfare
(SCP-1) Department, dated 07-07-2009 waived of the loan amount advanced to the persons belonging to SC, ST and BC communities under the said scheme. Since the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the said G.O., the loan amounts advanced to them were also waived of and there were no dues pending and the lands were cleared from all encumbrances. Then they have made a request to respondent No.5-society for release of the documents relating to the said lands, but respondent No.5 rejected their request on the ground that guideline No.6.6 of the Land Purchase Scheme Guidelines mandates that the documents shall be kept under safe custody of the Executive Director and a copy to be given to the beneficiaries. Aggrieved by the said action of respondent No.5, the petitioners filed W.P.No.29527 of 2012 and batch before this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petitions holding that once the loan is discharged, the owners of the land acquires right to claim the original documents of title, and no fetters can be imposed on such a right, and accordingly, directed respondent Nos.4 and 5 to release the registered documents of title in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said orders, respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed W.A.Nos.185, 186 and 187 of 2012 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeals with the following observation:
“There is nothing in the Scheme, which prohibits the land owner from transferring or alienating the property allotted to him. By keeping the original documents the appellant-corporation has put a restriction on the right of the respondents, which is not
warranted by law. In any case, no provision to this effect has been shown to us. As far as Clause 6.6 of the Scheme is concerned, this is applicable only during the period the loan is required to be paid by the beneficiaries. Once the loan is repaid, the documents cannot be kept by the Executive Director or any other person of the appellant-Corporation.”
4. By virtue of the said order of the Division Bench, the documents of title were released in favour of the petitioners. Then, the petitioners intended to sell their respective lands and in that regard, they have submitted sale deeds executed in favour of prospective purchasers before respondent No.3-Sub-Registrar for registration, but he refused to receive and register the sale deeds executed by the petitioners on the ground that respondent No.7Tahsildar, Kandukuru Mandal through the letter dated 19-09-2011 intimated him not to register the said lands in the names of other persons as those lands were purchased under Land Purchase Scheme. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the writ petitions seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to receive the sale deeds and register the said lands in favour of the prospective purchasers as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct him to do so.
5. The learned single Judge, while following the order of the Division Bench dated 15-02-2012 in W.A.Nos.185, 186 and 187 of 2012, wherein it was held that there is no prohibition in the scheme from alienation of such lands, allowed the writ petitions directing respondent No.3-
Sub-Registrar to register the documents presented by the petitioner without treating that Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 applies to the said lands. Aggrieved thereby, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have filed the present writ appeals.
6. Heard the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5- appellants herein and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.
7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4
and 5-appellants herein contends that the main object of the scheme is to provide agricultural land to the landless agricultural labourers from rural areas with an intention to provide permanent income generation asset, and if the petitioners, who are the beneficiaries of the scheme, are allowed to sell the lands provided under the scheme, the very purpose and object of the scheme is defeated and the scheme itself is frustrated.
8. A perusal of the guidelines of the scheme, which are relied upon by the appellants’ counsel, does not contain any clause prohibiting alienation of the land provided under the scheme. It is not even the case of respondent Nos.4 and 5 that there is any prohibition imposed subsequent to the formulation of the scheme. If the object of the scheme is to provide agricultural land to the beneficiaries with an intention to provide permanent income generating asset, the authorities ought to have taken steps at the time of formulating the scheme itself by mentioning some clauses of prohibition of alienation of the lands provided under the scheme. Admittedly there is no such condition of prohibition imposed even by this date. In the absence of such prohibition, the beneficiaries are entitled to sell the land. Hence, we are unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5- appellants herein.
9. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned single Judge, while following the orders of the Division Bench of this Court, has rightly directed respondent No.3Sub-Registrar to register the documents presented by the petitioners without treating that Section 22-A of the Act applies to the said land. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
10. Accordingly, all the writ appeals are dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No order as to costs.
_______________ N.V. RAMANA, J
______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date:09-07-2013 YCR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether beneficiaries of the Land Purchase Scheme are entitled to sell the allotted land in absence of an express prohibition clause in the guidelines.
Whether Section 22-A of the Registration Act bars registration of sale deeds executed by petitioners.
Whether the impugned order directing registration of sale deeds requires interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.P. Scheduled Caste Co-operative Finance Corporation Ltd and another
The Government of A.P.
Unofficial Respondents
Sub-Registrar
N.V. Ramana
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
