Dismissed

Daddolu Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o.Narapa Reddy, v. The Sub-Registrar

Telangana HC18 Feb 2013WP/4705/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of Writ Petitions challenging the rejection of sale deed registration for lands classified as Adavi Poramboke. While noting that mere list inclusion is not conclusive without a Section 22-A(2) notification, the Court dismissed the writs due to the petitioners' failure to produce required pattadar pass books and title deeds as mandated by statute, directing them to get a survey i

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to get a survey; if lands are not part of Reserve Forest, documents to be registered subject to production of pattadar pass books and title deeds.

Daddolu Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o.Narapa Reddy, Vs The… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition Nos.4693, 4697, 4705, 4706 and 4747 of 2013

¶2

Date: 18.02.2013

¶3

Common Order:

¶4

These Writ Petitions have been filed for setting aside Orders, dated 29-10-2012 and 08-01-2013, of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, whereby the documents presented by the respective petitioners for registration were rejected by respondent No.1-SubRegistrar, Rapur, SPSR Nellore District, and the appeal filed against the said Order was dismissed by respondent No.2-District Registrar, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

¶5

I have heard Sri Amara Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents.

¶6

The petitioners claim that they are the pattadars of the lands claimed by them. When they sought to present the sale deeds in respect of their respective lands for registration, respondent No.1 passed separate but identical orders whereunder he has stated that Survey No.1 of Pangili Village, Rapur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, in which the petitioners’ lands have been situated, is classified as “Adavi Poramboke land”, as per the list furnished by respondent No.3 under Section 22-A (1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). The said Order was confirmed in Appeal by respondent No.2. Assailing both these orders, the petitioners filed these Writ Petitions.

¶7

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have committed a serious

¶8

illegality in acting on the list submitted by respondent No.3 in the absence of a statutory notification issued under Section 22-A (2) of the Act. He further submitted that as evident from the proceedings in Rc.No.2963/2012-F1, dated 30-01-2013, of the Public Information Officer, Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, SPSR Nellore District, the total extent of land in Survey No.1 is Acs.4309.14 cents, out of which only an extent of Acs.2503-00 cents, is included in Kakulakonda Extension Reserve Forest as per G.O.Ms.No.115, EFS&T (For-VI) Department, dated 2304-1990.

¶9

It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the lands of the petitioners fall outside the extent of Acs.2503-00 cents, which alone was notified as Reserve Forest Extension.

¶10

This Court, while disposing of a batch of Writ Petitions, in W.P.Nos.30526 of 2012 and batch, dated 31-12-2012, has issued extensive directions to the Registering Officers as to the manner in which the documents presented for registration have to be treated. While dealing with the list submitted by the Tahsildar or other Revenue Authorities terming them as prohibitory list, this Court held that mere inclusion of the land in prohibitory list cannot be treated as conclusive proof of the lands belonging to the Government. It was further held that unless a statutory notification is issued under Section 22-A (2) of the Act, the Registering Officers are not bound to follow such prohibitory list, if the parties to the documents presented before the Registering Officers show prime facie proof of their ownership.

¶11

In the instant case, except pleading that their

¶12

lands fall outside the Reserve Forest area, the petitioners have not filed any proof in support thereof. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that his clients were not granted pattadar pass books and title deeds, even though the lands are shown to be patta lands in the Adangal/Pahani copy. Under Section 6-D of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), it is obligatory on the part of any person having interest or right in land to produce the title deed and pattadar pass book before the Registering Authority along with the documents, he proposes to get registered. An obligation has also been cast on the Registering Authority to make entry of every transaction of sale, gift, purchase, mortgage, lease or exchange in such title deed and pass book. Under Sub-Section (2) thereof, the Registering Authority is barred from registering any document without the production of pattadar pass book and title deed. In view of this legislative mandate, the petitioners cannot get their sale deeds registered unless they produce pattadar pass books and title deeds.

¶13

In the light of the above discussion, these Writ Petitions are disposed of in the following terms:

¶14

The petitioners are permitted to get the survey of their lands held and demarcated. If it is found in the survey that their lands do not form part of Reserve Forest/Protected Forest as per G.O.Ms.No.115, EFS&T (ForVI) Department, dated 23-04-1990, the SubRegistrars shall receive the documents for registration, subject to the petitioners producing the pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the lands covered by those documents.

¶15

` As a sequel to disposal of these Writ Petitions, interlocutory applications pending, if any, stand disposed of.

¶16

_______________________

¶17

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶18

Dt: 18-02-2013 SKA/LUR

Daddolu Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o.Narapa Reddy, v. The Sub-Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daddolu Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o.Narapa Reddy, v. The Sub-Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Case details

Similar cases

P. Pratap Reddy Vs The District Registrar

B.Venkateswara Reddy Vs The Reserve Bank of India, rep. by its Regional Manager

M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels Vs The Punjab National Bank

Mohd Mudassir Ahmed Vs The Chief Secretary of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

- Vs -

Katha Venkateswara Reddy, Vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited