Allowed

Inampudi Sri Lakshmi, W/o.I.Koteswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC10 Apr 2014WP/10979/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that based on prior judgments, the Endowments department cannot reopen the issue regarding land status granted to Archakas. The Court directed registration authorities to process the petitioners' deed of conveyance without considering the department's objection regarding endowment properties, provided statutory requirements are met.

What did the court decide?

Directing registration authorities to receive and process the document fulfilling requirements of the Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act without reference to Endowments department stand.

Inampudi Sri Lakshmi, W/o.I.Koteswara Rao Vs Government… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

Present

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.10979 of 2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

Inampudi Sri Lakshmi, W/o. I. Koteswara Rao, Aged 36 years, R/o. Flat No.4, Sai Southern Apartments, 5/3 Lane, Chandramoulinagar, Guntur & 2 others

¶8

.. Petitioners

¶9

AND

¶10

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 2 others

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.10979 of 2014

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

The petitioners purchased properties to an extent of 312 square yards in Survey Nos.63, 64 and 65 of Koretipadu Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District. When the petitioners intended to dispose of the said properties, the Sub-Registrar, Koritepadu, Guntur, Guntur District (second respondent) did not entertain the Deed of Conveyance holding that

¶17

as per the information furnished by the Tahsildar, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District (3^rd respondent), the lands are classified as Endowment properties and, therefore, no representation can be entertained.

¶18

2. Concerning the lands in the same Survey numbers, earlier several writ petitions were instituted. W.P.Nos.25595 and 25638 of 2012 are on the issue concerning the same property. Considering the submissions of the respondents, this Court passed following orders.

¶19

“In the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in the above LPA as long back as on 09.07.1976, it is not open to the Endowments department to seek to reopen the issue as to the nature and status of the inam granted by Sri Raja Manuri Venkata Rayanigaru. It is now settled that the said inam was granted to the Archakas alone and not to the temple. This Court also held that the nature of the grant was such that the Archakas were entitled to ryotwari pattas. Neither the temple nor the Endowments department can therefore seek to reopen these issues at this belated stage. As observed supra, the Division Bench in the year 1976 itself stated that it was too late in the day to disturb the findings recorded in the judgment passed in S.A.No.928 of 1963. More than 37 years having passed since then, this concluded issue is now beyond re-examination.

¶20

Given the afore-stated facts, it is not open to the registration and the endowments authorities to continue treating the subject lands as endowment property and introduce a prohibition as to registration of documents relating thereto. Admittedly, there is no notification issued under Section 22-A (2) of the Registration Act, 1908 in relation to these lands. Irrespective of the sanctity of the communication by the Endowments department to the Registration department, ostensibly under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908, the irrefutable fact remains that the Endowments department cannot claim these lands to be endowment/temple property.”

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that against the decisions of this Court in W.P.Nos.6653 of 2011, dated 18.03.2011, W.P.No.9245 of 2011, dated 07.04.2011, and W.P.No.25595 of 2012 and batch, dated 2607.2013, Writ Appeal Nos.1568 and 1569 of 2012 were instituted, but the said Writ Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by an order, dated 22.02.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that the orders passed by this Court in the above writ petitions have become final.

¶22

4. Learned Government Pleader does not dispute the said assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶23

5. Having regard to the submissions made and following the earlier decisions of this Court, this Writ Petition is also disposed of directing the registration authorities to receive and process the document presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject land without reference to the stand of the Endowments department. In the event the document presented is found to fulfil the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the registration authorities shall complete the registration formalities and release the document in accordance with the due procedure. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶24

JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶25

Date: 10^th April, 2014

¶26

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.10979 of 2014

¶29

Date: 10^th April, 2014

¶30