IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT
HYDERABAD
THE
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT
PETITION NO.6016 OF 2010
BETWEEN
Shaik Dudekula Pyari Jan @ Lal Bi
And
Others. … Petitioners
And
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madanapalli, Office of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Punganur Road,
Madanapalli,
Chittoor District.
And
Others. … Respondents
ORDER:
The
grievance of the petitioners in this case is that the Sub-Registrar, Piler,
Chittoor District, respondent 3, is insisting upon a ‘No Objection Certificate’
from the revenue authorities for entertaining their document for registration
in respect of their land in Survey Nos.1969/2, 1972, 1969/1B and 1971 of
Doddipalli Village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District. They seek a consequential
direction to respondent 3 to receive, register and release the said document
without insisting on such certification from the revenue authorities.
The
petitioners claim title and possession over the subject lands under registered
transactions. They trace their lineage of title to a registered transaction
dating back to the year 1942 in so far as Survey No.1969/2 is concerned, to
1938 in so far as Survey No.1969/1B is concerned, to 1959 in so far as Survey
No.1971 is concerned and to 1972 in so far as Survey No.1972 is concerned. It
is their complaint that when they approached respondent 3 to gather information
as to stamp duty and registration charges for executing registered sale deeds
in favour of the third parties in respect of these lands, respondent 3 refused
to give such information stating that the subject lands are Government lands
and that certification from the revenue authorities is required for providing
information in the matter.
In
his counter, the Sub-Registrar, Piler, stated that the subject lands had been
included in the list of Government lands furnished by the Tahsildar, Piler, and
that owing to the same he could not entertain any document for registration in
respect of these lands without approval by the revenue authorities.
Prohibition
of registration of documents as permitted by law is relatable to Section 22-A
of the Registration Act, 1908. In so far as Government lands are concerned the
prohibition is traceable to clause (e) of Section 22-A:
“22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain
documents:- (1) The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from
registration, namely:--
(a) ………….
(b) ………….
(c) ………….
(d) ………….
(e) any
documents or class of documents pertaining to the properties the State
Government may, by notification prohibit the registration in which avowed or
accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational,
Cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil,
Criminal Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others which are
likely to adversely affect these interests.
(2) For
the purpose of clause (e) of sub-section (1) the State Government shall publish
a notification after obtaining reasons for and full description of properties
furnished by the District Collectors concerned in the manner as may be
prescribed.”
Thus,
for the legal embargo to come into operation there must be a notification
issued by the State Government detailing the lands in which it has interest.
Admittedly, no such notification has been issued in the present case.
As
regards the plea of the respondents that Rule 4 of the Rules of 2007 has
operation in the present case, the said Rule may be examined. Rule 4 reads as
under:
“4. The
District Collector or the Authorised Officer not below the rank of Mandal Revenue
Officer/Tahsildar shall furnish the particulars of lands assigned in his
jurisdiction in Form No.III to the Registering Officer concerned, within (forty
five) 45 days from the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned
Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) (Amendment) Act, 2007 and further continue to
furnish such particulars in the same proforma whenever new assignments are made
from time to time.”
Bare
perusal of the aforestated Rule demonstrates that it pertains to furnishing a
list of assigned lands falling within the jurisdiction of the District
Collector/Tahsildar, as the case may be. The said Rule does not authorize the
revenue authorities to furnish a list of lands which they claim to be
Government lands basing on the entries in the revenue records. In the present
case, except for stating that entries in the Village Account R.S.R. of
Doddipalli Village indicate the lands in Survey Nos.1969/2, 1972, 1969/1B and
1971 as Government lands, there is no other basis for the revenue authorities
to stake a claim over the lands. To the contrary, the evidence on record, being
registered transactions dating back to 1942, 1938, 1959 and 1972, as the case
may be, clearly negates the unilateral claim of the revenue authorities that
this land is Government land. It is of course for the Government to assert and
prove its title if it chooses to do so, in a properly constituted proceeding
before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Without doing so, it is
not open to the revenue authorities or the registration authorities to deny
persons claiming rights over such land on the basis of mere revenue entries.
The action of the respondents in treating the subject land as Government land
and the action of the registration authorities in refusing to receive and
register documents in respect of this land is therefore unsustainable in law. I
find support for my view in the Judgments of this Court in P.SURESH
v. A.P. STATE AND OTHERS[1]; K.M.KAMULLA BASHA
v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR[2];
MEDA SUBBARAYUDU v. SUB-REGISTRAR, RAYACHOTY[3] and S.ZAKHIR v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR[4].
The
Writ Petition is accordingly allowed holding that there is no legal basis for
the registration authorities in insisting upon a ‘No Objection Certificate’
from the revenue authorities as a condition precedent for entertaining any
document for registration once the prohibition under Section 22-A of the
Registration Act, 1908 does not come into operation. It is not open to the
registration authorities to treat any particular land as Government land basing
on the mere communication to that effect by the revenue authorities which, in
turn, is based on mere entries in the revenue records. There shall be a
consequential direction to the Sub-Registrar, Piler, Chittoor District,
respondent 3, to entertain the documents presented by the petitioners in
respect of their lands in Survey Nos.1969/2, 1972, 1969/1B and 1971 of
Doddipalli Village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District and process the same for
registration in accordance with law. No costs.
____________________
SANJAY
KUMAR, J.
________ JULY, 2010.
VGSR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.26817 of 2010
Date: 30.11.2010
Between:
K.Siva Prasad Reddy
..... PETITIONER
AND
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle,
Chittoor District and two others
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA
Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not registering the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring
26 cents in Survey No.44 of Piler Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, as arbitrary and illegal.
26 cents in Survey No.44 of Piler Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, as arbitrary and illegal.
At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that since the above mentioned land has been included in A-Register showing the same as Government assessed waste, the document was not entertained for registration.
While dealing with similar situation, this Court in W.P.No.3042 of 2010 vide order dated 01.11.2010 held as under:
“In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it is stated that the property in question is Government land in terms of Permanent A-Register prepared in the year 1914 and therefore, the same was included in the list of prohibited lands for registration, communicated to respondent No.3.
While dealing with a similar situation, this Court in Shaik Dudekula Pyari Jan @ Lal Bi and others v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Punganur Road, Madanapalli, Chittoor District and others[1], held that mere entry in the RSR is not conclusive proof of title. The petitioners have specifically pleaded in the affidavit and the same is not denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit that several sale transactions through registered sale deeds have taken place from 1971 in respect of the same land.
In my opinion, the reasoning of this Court in the above-mentioned judgment squarely applies to this case.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to respondent No.3 to entertain the documents presented by the petitioners for registration without treating the land as belonging to the Government. However, this order does not preclude the Government and its functionaries from asserting their title over the property in an appropriate Court of law.”
In view of the reasoning contained in the above reproduced order, the writ petition is allowed and a mandamus be issued as prayed for.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Date: 30.11.2010
va
No comments:
Post a Comment