Writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable on merits. The Court held that no provision in the Registration Act allowed restraining authorities without a notification under Section 22-A, and violations of land rules were a separate matter for enforcement.
Petition dismissed; interim order of 23-12-2013 vacated.
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 P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITON No.37323 of 2013
ORDER:
This writ petition is instituted by the petitioner alleging that the registering authorities are entertaining and registering the deeds of conveyance concerning plots located in survey numbers 255, 256/1, 256/2, 299, 266/1B, 266/1C, 266/1A, 266/2, 266/4 and 252 of Gundlur village, Rajampet mandal, YSR Kadapa district belonging to respondents 5 and 6 and said action is illegal inspite of notice served on the registering authorities on 27-10-2013 and 28-102013.
2. The 5th and 6th respondents have prepared a lay-out and has been selling plots without permission for preparing lay out as mandated by the Rules, 2005. Having noticed the illegality, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayath has brought to the notice of registering authorities in her legal notices dated 27-10-2013 and 28-10-2013 requesting the registering authorities not to entertain any deed of conveyance in survey numbers mentioned above. As there was no response from the registering authority and registering authority continued to undertake registrations, this writ petition is instituted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the government formulated rules under the Andhra Pradesh Grampanchayath Land Development (Lay out and building) Rules, 2002 (for short “Rules, 2002”) notified vide G.O.Ms.No.67, Panchayath Raj and Rural Development (Ps.IV) Department dated 26-02-2002.
4. As per rule 3 every person who intends to undertake or carry out lay-out or development work shall apply in writing to the Executive Authority of such intention in the form prescribed in Annexure –A appended to these rules. Sub-Rule 3 of Rule-3 prescribes required documents to be attached to the application.
5. Rule-11 enjoins prior technical approval from Director of Town and Country Planning is mandatory for certain permissions.
6. Rule 12 of the Rules prescribes offences and penalties. Rule 12 (2) empowers the District Panchayath Officer or his officers to take action against any violations and issue suitable instructions to the Executive authority.
7. Learned counsel submits that in order to protect the interest of the grampanchayath, Sarpanch of the grampanchayath has taken up the cause by exposing illegalities committed by 5th and 6th respondents. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the 5th and 6th respondents as well as registering authorities should be restrained from undertaking any registration unless approval is obtained from the grampanchayath. It is further submitted that the 5th respondent submitted an application for sanction of lay out on 06-11-2013 and the Executing authority considered the same and sought proper application to be submitted, but no further application is submitted by the 5th respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent raises objection about maintainability of the writ petition on two grounds. Firstly, the writ petitioner is deposed by the Sarpanch of Gram panchayath and has not disclosed the authorization on behalf of gram panchayath. The Gram panchayath is represented by Executive authority, who is a civil servant but not the Sarpanch and the Sarpanch also does not disclose any such authorisation given to him and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
9. Secondly, on the ground of violation of provisions of 2002 Rules, no direction can be sought against the registering authority not to accept registration of deeds of conveyance presented before them. Unless there is restraint imposed on alienation of the properties by a statutory notification, the registering authority cannot be prevented from entertaining the deeds of conveyance.
10. The relief sought in the writ petition is against the registering authorities in entertaining deeds of conveyance. But, no provision is brought to my notice, which imposes such restriction on the registering authorities from entertaining any deeds presented before the registering authority except Section 22-A. To apply section 22-A, there must be a notification issued under the said provision showing list of the properties, which are prohibited from alienation. Admittedly, the properties in issue are private patta lands and, therefore, Section 22-A is not attracted. There is no other provision in the Registration Act, which can be invoked to restrain the registering authority from entertaining deeds of conveyance. On the contrary, according to Rule58 of A.P. Rules under the Registration Act, the registering authority can not go beyond the documents submitted before him and it is not his responsibility to go into the title dispute. Thus, the relief claimed in the writ petition per se is not maintainable. Rules, 2002 is a self contained code and make enough provisions to take action against persons violating the said rules. Admittedly, so far action under Rule 12 is not initiated.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted representation in her individual capacity to the Divisional Panchayath Officer (DPO), but he has not taken any action so far. If a complaint is made before the DPO and the DPO has not acted upon the said complaint, the petitioner has to avail appropriate remedy to ensure the DPO follows the provisions of the rules. No relief is sought against the DPO in this writ petition. Therefore, with reference to complaint lodged by the petitioner on 06-11-2013 no opinion can be expressed by this Court.
12. In view of the mandate of the Registration Act and rules made thereunder, the writ petition in the present form is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies. The interim order granted earlier on 23-12-2013 stands vacated.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J
Date: 30.06.2014 Nvl
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
W.P. No.37323 of 2013
30.06.2014
Nvl
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed by the Sarpanch against registering authorities is maintainable absent authorization and statutory notification restricting alienation.
Whether registering authorities can be restrained from entertaining deeds of conveyance under the Registration Act without a specific notification under Section 22-A.
Whether the petitioner's remedy lies in approaching the District Panchayath Officer rather than seeking a directive against registering authorities.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sarpanch of Gram Panchayath
5th Respondent
6th Respondent
Registering Authorities
P.NAVEEN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
