Allowed

Kandimalla Pramachand, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC12 Sept 2013WP/17025/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the State failed to prove that the subject land was assigned with a non-alienability condition prior to 1954, rendering the bar under the Act of 1977 inapplicable. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, directing the Sub-Registrar to process the documents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were allowed with a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Martur, to receive and process the documents without reference to the claim that the land is assigned.

Kandimalla Pramachand, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.17022, 17025, & 17428 of 2013

¶3

Date: 12.09.2013

¶4

W. P. No.17022 of 2013:

Between:

Gudipalli Padma

… Petitioner

And State of Andhra Pradesh,, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department Hyderabad & others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶12

WRIT PETITION Nos.17022, 17025, & 17428 of 2013

¶13

COMMON ORDER:

¶14

The petitioners in these three cases are aggrieved by the action of the Sub-Registrar, Martur Mandal, Prakasam district, in not registering the documents presented by them relating to the lands in Sy.No.364 of Kolalapudi revenue village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam district.

¶15

2. The reason for such refusal, as set out by the Joint SubRegistrar-7, Martur, in his counter-affidavit, is that the land in the subject survey number is shown as assigned land in the letter received by him from the Tahsildar, Martur Mandal.

¶16

3. The Tahsildar, Martur Mandal, filed a separate counter-

¶17

affidavit stating that initially Sy.No.284/6 of Kolalapudi village, which admeasured Ac.91.30 cents, was classified as ‘Government Dry’ (Assessed Waste) in the Re-Survey and Settlement Register (RSR) of the village. He further stated that this huge block was split-up and Sy.No.364, admeasuring Ac.8.07 cents, was one of the sub-divided extents which emanated therefrom. According to him, the entire extent in Sy.No.364 of the village was assigned to landless poor persons. He further stated that a condition of non-alienability was attached to this assignment. He however admitted that the records pertaining to this assignment were not available with his office or the Collectorate. He further stated that the petitioners were also amongst the assignees. He relied upon the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1977’) and the Registration Act, 1908, to support his plea that the documents relating to these assigned lands would not be amenable to registration. Significantly, the Tahsildar conceded that one Katuri Raghavulu purchased the entire land in this survey number from Gurram Kotappa and Puri Venkataswamy under registered sale deed bearing document No.422 dated 14.03.1922. The petitioners in these three cases trace their lineage to this predecessor-in-title.

¶18

4. In the light of the aforestated facts, the issue that arises is as to whether it is open to the revenue and registration authorities to press into service a prohibition under the provisions of the Act of 1977 and Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶19

5. Admittedly, no record is available with the Revenue Department in connection with the so called assignment. Further, this Court has held in several cases that a condition of non-alienability was attached to assignment in Andhra area only in the year 1954. The assignments made prior to this date were not saddled with such a condition and therefore, such assignments would not come within the purview of the Act of 1977 and the consequential prohibition under

¶20

Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908. In the present case, the registered sale transaction dating back to the year 1922 reflects that the assignment of this land, if any, would have only been prior to that year. Therefore, in the absence of record this Court is inclined to hold that such assignment, even if true, would not have been coupled with a condition of non-alienability. Being the custodian of the records, the failure on the part of the Government in producing the record pertaining to this alleged assignment must necessarily weigh against it and this Court is constrained to draw an adverse inference to that effect.

¶21

6. Thus, as matters stand, this Court finds that the un-contested registered sale transaction of 1922 pertaining to the land in the subject survey number negates the claim of the State that the subject land is an assigned land which is amenable to the provisions of the Act of 1977. The action of the revenue and registration authorities in treating it to be so is without basis and hence, unsustainable in law.

¶22

7. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be a consequential direction to the Sub-Registrar, Martur, to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioners without reference to the claim of the revenue authorities that the land in the subject survey number is an assigned land. In the event the documents presented are found to fulfil the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Sub-Registrar, Martur, shall complete the registration formalities and release the documents in accordance with the due procedure. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶23

________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶24

Date: 12.09.2013 BSS

Kandimalla Pramachand, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandimalla Pramachand, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sudharshan S/o Cheralu Vs The Andhra Pradesh State ware Housing Corporation

M/s. Sri Venkateswara Varalaksmi Saw Mill, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Khasim S/o Saidulu Vs A.P. State Wakf Board

Dasari , Paidikalava Chinna Venkataiah Vs The Joint Sub Registrar

Mohammed Fasiullah Vs The A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep by its Chief Executive Office

Vellanki Krishna Prasad, Vs The Revenue Divisional officer