Allowed

Arisetty Krishna Rao, S/o.late Seetharamayya, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC28 Apr 2014WP/13336/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of batch writ petitions challenging the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register conveyance deeds. Ruling that Gramakantam land does not automatically qualify as Government property under the Land Encroachment Act and is not prohibited for alienation, the Court directed the Sub-Registrar to accept and process the deeds.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed. Sub-Registrar directed to receive deeds of conveyance, process them under the Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and treat the land as private property.

Arisetty Krishna Rao, S/o.late Seetharamayya, Vs The… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.13311, 13330, 13335, 13336 and 13343 of 2014

¶3

Dated : 28.04.2014

¶4

W.P.No.13311 of 2014

¶5

Between: V. Vijaya akshmi .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Registration and Stamps (Revenue) Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad and others .. Respondents W.P.No.13330 of 2014 Between: Ch. Dantheswari .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Registration and Stamps (Revenue) Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad and others .. Respondents W.P.No.13335 of 2014 Between: Kota Sunitha .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Registration and Stamps (Revenue) Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad and others .. Respondents W.P.No.13336 of 2014 Between:

¶6

Arisetty Krishna Rao

¶7

.. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Registration and Stamps (Revenue) Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad and others .. Respondents W.P.No.13343 of 2014 Between: Pantla Venkata Rama Rao .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Registration and Stamps (Revenue) Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners in Writ petition Nos.13311, 13335 and 13336 of 2014 : Sri Reddy Venkata Ramana Counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.13330 of 2014 : Sri Aravala Rama Rao Counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.13343 of 2014 : Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao

¶8

Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4 : Government Pleader Counsel for Respondent No.5 : Sri B.D.Maheswar Reddy

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶10

WRIT PETITION Nos.13311, 13330, 13335, 13336 and 13343 of 2014

¶11

COMMON ORDER :

¶12

With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

¶13

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing Counsel for Municipality, these Writ Petitions are disposed of at the admission stage.

¶14

2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are the owners and purchasers of the properties situated in Town Survey Nos.159/2 and 162/2 of Salur Village and Municipality, Vizianagaram District. The registering authority refused to receive the deed of conveyance of the said properties on the ground that the properties are described in the revenue records as poramboke and prohibited for registration and the same was communicated to the SubRegistrar. Hence, these writ petitions.

¶15

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing Counsel for Municipality.

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is illegal to classify the land in Town Survey No.159/2 and 162/2 of Salur Municipality as poramboke land and refusing registration. He submits that Salur is a town and residential houses have come up long ago. Several transactions have taken place over the years. This Court allowed several writ petitions overruling the objection of respondents but respondents continue to raise the same objection causing untold agony and suffering to petitioners.

¶17

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that as revenue records show the status of land as poramboke, the objection was validly raised and petitioners are not entitled to undertake deeds of conveyance on such lands.

¶18

6. Learned Standing Counsel produced the counter filed by Municipality in W.P.No.23634 of 2012.

¶19

7. In W.P.No.23634 of 2012, Salur Municipality filed counter-affidavit stating that there are no records which can establish that the lands in Survey Nos.159/2 and 162/2 are Government lands. On the contrary, several permanent structures were built up by the private individuals in the lands in

¶20

question from the year 1950 onwards, even before the village was upgraded to that of Municipality. The said buildings were assessed for collecting property tax.

¶21

8. On a representation by residents of Salur Municipality, the SubRegistrar, Salur, Vizianagaram District vide endorsement No.Nil/2012 dated 30.06.2012, informed them that on verification of the records and as per intimation received from Government, the land is shown as Gramakantam. It is thus seen that there is no clarity with reference to the status of the land in these two survey numbers. As per the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar dated 30.06.2012, the land is described as Gramakantam and as per the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.23634 of 2012 on behalf of Salur Municipality, there are no records to establish the lands in these survey numbers as Government lands. Different authorities have taken different stands. The fact remains that Salur has grown into a full fledged town and several residential properties have come up on these lands over a period of time. Except for taking paper objection and inviting an order from the Court, no serious endeavour is made to resolve the controversy.

¶22

9. Gramakantam is not a Government land and there is no prohibition to undertake transactions on the said lands. In fact, Gramakantam describes the area identified for the purpose of construction of residential houses and incidental structures in a village. It is neither a Government land nor land vested in the village panchayat. This village has now grown into a town and is governed by a Municipality.

¶23

10. The land in these two survey numbers was the subject matter in several writ petitions and this Court has passed orders directing the registering authority to receive and process the deed of conveyance.

¶24

11. In W.P.No.23634 of 2012 and batch, this Court rejected the stand taken by the respondent Municipality that the land belongs to Municipality. This Court held that,

¶25

“At the hearing, it is submitted that the property is vested with respondent No.4-Municipality. If that be so, respondent No.4 is entitled to sue the petitioners for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property. The respondents cannot object to

¶26

registration of the sale deeds without getting their right declared by a competent Court of law. Accordingly, respondent No.3 is directed to receive and register the sale deeds that may be presented by the petitioners subject to the latter complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.”

¶27

12. No statutory provision is brought to my notice which prohibit sale of property standing in the name of a particular person, which is classified in the revenue records as Gramakantam. It is appropriate to notice provision in Section 2(1) of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Section 2(1) of the Act, describes which are to be treated as Government property. Section

¶28

read as under:

¶29

Section 2. Right of property in public roads, etc., water and lands:-

¶30

(1) All public roads, streets, lanes and paths, the bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks below high water mark, and of rivers, streams, nalas, lakes, and tanks, and all canals and watercourses, and all standing and flowing water, and all lands, whenever situated, save in so far as the same are the property,(a) of any zamindar, poligar, mittadar, jagirdars, shortriemdar or any person claiming thorough or holding under any of them, or

¶31

(b) of any, person paying shist, kattubadi, jodi, poruppu or quit-rent to any of the aforesaid persons, or (c) of any person holding under ryotwari tenure or in any way subject to the payment of land revenue direct to Government, or

¶32

(d) of any other registered holder of land in proprietary right, or

¶33

(e) of any other person holding land under grant from the Government otherwise than by way of licence. and as to lands, save also in so far as they are temples sites or owned as house site or backyard.

¶34

be and are hereby declared to be the property of Government except as may be otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, subject always to all rights of way and other public rights and to the natural and easement rights of other land owners, and to all customary rights legally subsisting.

¶35

Properties shown from “a” to “e” are not to be treated as Government lands. “c” and “d” are relevant for the purpose of this case.

¶36

13. When the District Registrar, Kadapa, sought for clarification from the District Collector, Kadapa, the District Collector, issued Circular Reference

¶37

No.E3/1291/2007, dated 29.04.2007. The District Collector clarified that in view of provision in Section 2(1) of the Act, 1905, any person can claim the rights over the Gramanatham lands. Such clarification would equally apply to this case also.

¶38

14. In para-2 of G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 22.02.2014, Government admits that no records are available showing that the lands classified as Gramakantam are the Government lands. In para 4(6), it is stated that the property owned by a private individual or a family in village site, which are used as cattle sheds or for any other agrarian purpose and domestic purpose by way of dwelling houses can be considered to be treated as private property and the persons under whose possession the lands are occupied be allowed to sell away their lands.

¶39

15. As evident from the Circular of the District Collector, Kadapa, and the Orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 22.02.2014, the lands classified as Gramakantham are not the Government lands and that there is no restraint for alienation of the said properties. Thus, the decision of the Sub-Registrar in refusing to entertain the deed of conveyance concerning the properties in Sy.Nos.159/2 and 162/2 of Salur Municipality, is erroneous.

¶40

16. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the SubRegistrar, Salur, to furnish market value concerning the properties situated in Survey Nos.159/2 and 162/2 of Salur Municipality and to receive the deeds of conveyance as and when the same are presented by the parties on the said lands and process the same in accordance with the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 without raising the objection that the land is classified as Government land. The Sub-Registrar shall complete the registration formalities, if the documents are in order and to release the same. If the Sub-Registrar has any other valid reason for not entertaining the documents, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

17. Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶42

JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶43

Date : 28.04.2014 va

Arisetty Krishna Rao, S/o.late Seetharamayya, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arisetty Krishna Rao, S/o.late Seetharamayya, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Saiprabha, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pandraju Ashalatha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr.Vikram Reddy Masani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

A.Lakshmi Nagamani, W/o. Late a.Sivaramaiah Vs The Government of A.P.

Boggula Ramakka Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Lakkaenboina Sujatha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh