IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
*THE HON’BLE
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
+ WRIT PETITION
No.31960 of 2010
%15-02-2011
# M. Sunanda
&
others
..petitioners
And
$ The District
Collector,
Chittoor
Distir & others
..Respondents
!Counsel for
the petitioners :
Sri P. Sridhar Reddy
^Counsel for
respondents : G.P. for Revenue
ORDER:
Of late, the
Government, particularly in the Revenue Department; is resorting to steps,
which, if resorted to by private individuals, are prone to be treated as
instances of baseless and untenable claims. Section 22-A of the Registration Act
(for short
‘the Act’), introduced through A.P Act 19 of 2007 has become handy. The result is that a spate of litigation has emerged in the context of requiring the registering authorities to entertain or process the documents, which, in the ordinary course, does not lead to any litigation, whatever.
‘the Act’), introduced through A.P Act 19 of 2007 has become handy. The result is that a spate of litigation has emerged in the context of requiring the registering authorities to entertain or process the documents, which, in the ordinary course, does not lead to any litigation, whatever.
One Sri
Vadivelu was granted ryotwari patta in respect of 10 acres of land in
Sy.No.119/2 of Upparapalli Village, Mangalam Group, Tirupati Urban Mandal,
Chittoor District, in the year 1979. Fair
Adangal was also issued in his name. Thereafter, he sold the property in favour
of one Sri Guruvareddy through four sale deeds in the year 1978-79. The land was divided into plots by
Guruvareddy and the petitioners purchased plots in the year 1979. They intended to sell the properties. The petitioners approached the
Sub-Registrar, the 4th respondent
herein with a request to furnish the market value, stamp duty and registration
charges in respect of the plots held by them. The 4threspondent refused
to furnish the said information
on the ground that the land in Sy.No.119/2 figured in the list of Government lands, furnished by the revenue authorities. Thereupon, the petitioners approached the Tahsildar, Tirupati
(Urban) Mandal, the 3rd respondent, with a request to issue
No Objection Certificate. The 3rd respondent issued endorsement dated 14-08-2010 to the effect that the land is classified as “Pagullasthalam” and that request for issuance of No Objection Certificate cannot be considered. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same.
on the ground that the land in Sy.No.119/2 figured in the list of Government lands, furnished by the revenue authorities. Thereupon, the petitioners approached the Tahsildar, Tirupati
(Urban) Mandal, the 3rd respondent, with a request to issue
No Objection Certificate. The 3rd respondent issued endorsement dated 14-08-2010 to the effect that the land is classified as “Pagullasthalam” and that request for issuance of No Objection Certificate cannot be considered. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same.
On behalf of
the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that once the land is
described as Government land in the revenue records, the prohibition contained
under Section 22-A of the Act operates, and the petitioners cannot insist on
furnishing of
No Objection Certificate. It is also stated that the petitioners have to work out the remedies, vis-à-vis the classification of the land.
No Objection Certificate. It is also stated that the petitioners have to work out the remedies, vis-à-vis the classification of the land.
Sri P. Sridhar
Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the ryotwari patta
was granted under the A.P. Estates Abolition and Conversion into Rythwari Act,
1948, the pattadar becomes absolute owner and the land does not partake any
element of Government’s interest. He
contends that recognising Vadivelu as the absolute owner, the Government sought
to acquire the land along with other extents by issuing a notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, way
back on 02-06-1997, and for one reason or the other, the acquisition did not
fructify. Learned counsel
submits that the description mentioned in the endorsement, or in the
counter-affidavit does not find place in any provision of law.
Learned
Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that, as of now, the
property is described as “Pagulla- sthalam”, which means that it belongs to
Government, and as long as the classification remains, the prohibition
contained under Section 22 of the Act would operate.
The
petitioners assert that the patta in respect of the land in Sy.No.119/2 was
issued under Section 11(a) of the A.P. Estates Abolition and Conversion into
Rythwari Act, 1948, way back in the year 1979 in favour of one Vadivelu. The issuance of patta results in
preparation of fair adangal. The
petitioners have filed a copy of the fair adangal in respect of the land in
Sy.No.119/2. Added to that,
the District Collector, Chittoor, issued notification under Sections 4(1) and 6
of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1997, proposing to acquire vast extent
of land for the purpose of construction of a new railway station, electrical
sub-station and facilities for the pilgrims of Tirumala Tirupati
Devasthanams. The land in
Sy.No.119/2 was mentioned at Sl.No.28. That
only shows that the Government and in particular, the revenue department
recognised the absolute ownership of Vadivelu over the said land. The acquisition did not fructify.
The original
owner i.e. Vadivelu sold the land in favour of Guruvareddy and from him, the
petitioners purchased the plots. The
basis for the 4th respondent
to refuse registration is the list furnished by the 3rd respondent, in which, the land in
Sy.No.119/2 was included. Normally,
once a particular survey number is included in the list furnished by the
revenue authorities, the effected party must be required to pursue the remedies
for change of classification. However,
when the record itself discloses that the very inclusion is untenable and there
is error apparent on the face of the record, the aggrieved party cannot be
subjected to the ordeal of pursuing the remedies, which, in turn, are not
referable to any particular statute. At
any rate, the so-called description namely, “Pagullasthalam” does not, by
itself, bring about the land under the purview of the Government. At the most, it may depict the
physical feature of the land. No
provision of law is cited in support of the contention, that the said description
would lead to the conclusion, that the land belongs to the Government.
Viewed from
any angle, the action of the respondents cannot be countenanced. Hence, the writ petition is allowed,
and the impugned order is set aside. The
4threspondent is directed to furnish necessary information in
relation to the document, that may be presented by the petitioners, without
applying Section 22-A of the
Registration Act.
The
miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
No comments:
Post a Comment