THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION Nos.20541 of 2019 and 133 of 2020
COMMON ORDER:
M/s. Vasundhara Constructions Private Limited represented
by its authorised secretary filed W.P.No.20541 of 2019 under Article
226 of the Constitution of India questioning the intimation of refusal
letter issued by respondent No.2 dated 30.11.2019 refusing
registration of pending document No.587 of 2019, on the basis of the letter of respondent No.3 dated 28.09.2019 and declare the same as arbitrary, illegal and direct respondent Nos.1 and 2, forthwith register the said document without referring to the objections and claims of respondent No.3 based on the order of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar dated 27.08.2019 in IDT No.19/2015.
T.G.Venkata Krishna filed W.P.No.133 of 2020 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of respondent No.4, refusing to entertain the documents on the basis of the letter addressed by the Executive Officer in ROC.No.Prop.I/16696/AEO (Prop)/1991 dated 28.09.2019 and the consequential letter issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar in C.No.156/1/2019 dated 16.12.2019 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to entertain the documents submitted by the petitioner for registering the mortgage deed in respect of the property situated in Sy.No.623/3C, Chinthalachenu, 19th Ward, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
Both these petitions are filed claiming identical relief by different petitioners having different extents in Chintalachenu, Tirupati, Chittoor District, and the issue involved in these two petitions is one and the same. Therefore, I am of the view that it is MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 2 expedient to decide both these petitions by common order taking Writ Petition No.20541 of 2019 as leading petition.
The factual matrix in W.P.No.20541 of 2019 is as follows: The petitioner is the owner and possessor of immovable property to an extent of 13789.85 sq.meters in Sy.No.8A/1D & 623/3C of Tirupati Village, Chintalachenu Area, Tirupati, Chittoor District. The petitioner is developing and constructing a multi storied residential complex of Block A, B and C on the said land, and named as "Temple town @ Tirupati", wherein Block C comprising of apartments and superstructures and the same was completed in November, 2016 (Phase - 1).
Out of the said flats in the apartment, the petitioner is desirous to sell away part and parcel of immovable property i.e. built up area bearing flat No.1202, 12th Floor admeasuring 843 sft. and in that process, it has executed a sale deed dated 21.11.2019 in favour of Koppula Gayathry Rao and WG.CDR K.N. Rao and the sale deed has been presented for registration before respondent No.1, and it was assigned pending document No.587 of 2019.
By the impugned intimation of refusal dated 30.11.2019, the registration of the said pending document has been refused on the ground that as per the letter of respondent No.2 dated 30.11.2019, registration of document was refused. In the said letter dated 30.11.2019, the respondent No.2 has referred to the order of Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor dated 27.08.2019 wherein an order has been passed under Section 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short "the Act"), to the effect that Tirupati Village (T.D.No.2436) is an Inam land held by respondent No.3.
MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 3 Aggrieved by the said order of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 3 (4) of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer in Appeal No.G/1024/2019, which is pending. It is further contended that the refusal of registration of the pending document by respondent No.1 on the letter of respondent No.2 is illegal and ultra vires to the provisions contained in Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908. Since the document has been refused for registration on extraneous and alien grounds under the Registration Act, the domestic remedy of appeal to the District Registrar is not an adequate and effective alternate remedy. The specific grounds urged by the petitioner questioning the legality and validity of refusal order are as follows:
(a) Respondent No.3 has no authority under law to correspond with registering authorities, requesting to refuse registration of documents in respect of some land claimed by it. Refusal of registration is governed by Section 22A of the Registration Act. Unless and until a ryotwari patta is granted in favour of respondent No.3, it cannot assert ownership over the subject land; and that no obligation is cast on the registration authorities to oblige the request of respondent No.3. Thus respondent No.3 is a persona non- grata in the matter of registration of documents by respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the statutory authorities. Hence refusal of registration of the pending document on the basis of the letter of respondent No.3 is illegal and contrary to law.
(b) An order passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar under Section 3 (3) of the Act is not a final order. It is always MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 4 subject to an appeal as per Section 3 (4) of the Act. In fact, the petitioner preferred an appeal No.G/1024/2019 and the same is pending before the appellate authority. Thus the Inam Deputy Tahsildar's order dated 27.08.2019 has not attained finality, and as on date no ryotwari patta has been granted in favour of respondent No.3 in respect of the subject property, as such respondent No.3 is not entitled to claim any right over the property.
(c) The impugned order of respondent No.2 is vitiated by total non-application of mind and the registering authorities are not concerned with the adverse title claims of the parties. Since the refusal of registration is not based on any grounds referable to Section 22A or the provisions of the Registration Act, the impugned intimation of refusal letter is illegal and unsustainable in law, requested to set aside the same.
Respondent No.3 filed counter-affidavit denying material allegations inter alia contending that the petitioner did not disclose the source of title to the property except alleging that he acquired the said property under the registered sale deed. No copy of the sale deed is placed on record to claim title over the property, more particularly to prove the original owner‟s name from whom he purchased the property.
It is further contended that by proceedings dated 27.08.2019, the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, passed an Order declaring that the land in Survey Nos.6, 8, 9, 12 and 623, T.S.No.4073 in T.D.No.2426 admeasuring Ac.188.32 cents is Inam land in Ryotwari village, Tirupathi, (Re-survey and Town survey) and Inam lands are MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 5 held by an Institution, i.e., Tirumala - Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD), respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is a Religious Institution within the meaning of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The declaration was given in accordance with Sec.3 (1) of the Act, 1956 as amended by Act 2/1975, Act 19/2011 and A.P. Ordinance No.2 of 2019. It was further held that these Inam lands were given to render service i.e. performing sacred service of Divya Nama Sankeertana of Lord Sri Venkataswara Swamy Varlu, Tirumala - Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupati. The Petitioner is aware of these Orders. Against these Orders, some Appeals have been filed before the Appellate Authority and they are pending disposal.
It is further contended that under Section 22 (A) (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908, documents relating to transfer of property in respect of immovable property own by Religious and Charitable Institutions are prohibited from registration. The subject property is a part of the land, which is declared, as aforesaid, by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, as belonging to Tirumala - Tirupathi Devasthanams, a Religious Institution. This land is held to be Inam land, burdened with service. It is settled law that in respect of Inam land burdened with service, if service is not rendered or failure to render such service, the person in whose favour, service has to be rendered, will automatically be not entitled to a patta in such land. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner is claiming part of such Inam land, burdened with service, and it is apparent that such inam land could not have been transferred and every case of such a transfer there is failure of service to the deity. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to possess, acquire, purchase or retain such MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 6 land. He is not entitled to further burden the land with some other loans as proposed by it. Either the petitioner or the predecessor in title is not entitled to deal with the property from the notified date. It is settled law that if the land is declared as an inam land held by the institution, under Sec 7 of the Act such institution alone is entitled to ryotwari patta.
It is further contended that the petitioner is aware of the said proceedings before the Inam Deputy Tahsildar and the orders passed thereon by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar. The petitioner has already filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority on 05.09.2019. The petitioner is appellant No.126 among 130 appellants who had filed the said Appeals.
It is further contended that the Executive Officer, T.T.D., the respondent No.3 herein, had communicated the said order of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, to Respondents 2 and 5 and to other Officials. When once the nature of subject property is within the knowledge of Registering authority, the document pertaining to such land, more particularly land belonging to religious institutions cannot be registered in view of the bar under Section 22 A (1) (c) of the Registration Act and the registration of those documents is prohibited. Mere communication of the order passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar to the Registering Authority by the respondent No.3 cannot be considered by the petitioner as an order issued by the respondent No.3 to the Registering Authority directing it not to entertain registration of any document in relation to the subject property. Under the Statute the registration of any document transferring the subject property which is part of land declared by MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 7 the Inam Deputy Tahsildar as belonging to the respondent No.3 herein is prohibited and cannot be entertained.
It is further contended that respondent No.2 herein intimated the petitioner by letter dated 30.11.2019 refusing to register the document. In the said letter itself, it was mentioned that an Appeal against the said refusal orders would lie to the District Registrar within 30 days. The writ petitioner without availing the statutory remedy of Appeal approached this Court and normally the Court will not entertain the writ petition when the petitioner has an alternative remedy of statutory Appeal to the Appellate Authority.
It is further contended that when a statutory remedy is available under the Registration Act, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition. The remedy open to the writ petitioner is to file an appeal against the order of refusal, as such when statutory remedy is available; the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground.
It is asserted that when the subject property is part of Inam burdened with service, if the Inamdar failed to render service, automatically the institution is entitled to claim patta, but the petitioner cannot maintain writ petition, requested to dismiss the writ petition as it lacks merits.
During hearing, Sri Vedual Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel would contend that the impugned order based on the intimation given by respondent No.3 is illegal as the property is not notified in terms of Section 22 A (2) of the Registration Act. In the absence of any notification, respondent No.2 is under obligation to register the document if it is satisfied the requirements of the Registration Act. But without any notification, based on the mere MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 8 intimation, respondent No.2 refused to register the document. On this ground alone, the order passed by respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside. He further contended that the land is declared as Inam land, and appeal is pending before the appellate authority, thereby the order of Inam Deputy Tahsildar has not attained finality, on this ground, refusal to register the document is illegal.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that as on date no patta was granted in favour of the institution, respondent No.3 herein. As long as patta was not granted in favour of respondent No.3, sending intimation to the Registrar about the right in the land, and acting upon such intimation, refusal to register the document is a grave illegality.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the order under Section 3 (3) of the Act is passed by the Tahsildar, unless the land is notified in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the Action of respondent No.2 refusing to register the document is a serious illegality and vitiated by procedural irregularity, requested to set aside the impugned order.
Sri S.S.Prasad, learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 and 5 contended that when the land is declared as Inam and it is service inam burdened with rendering service, the Inamdar is not entitled to claim any patta as the original Inamdar failed to perform service to respondent No.3 - Institution. Moreover, appeal lies to the District Registrar against the order passed by the Joint sub-Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act. When a statutory efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court cannot entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 9 India, thereby this Court cannot interfere with the order passed by respondent No.2. However, the Court may relegate the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 72 of the Registration Act.
Yet, another contention urged by Sri S.S.Prasad, learned senior Counsel is that when once any land in the village is declared as Inam by exercising power under Section 3 (3) of the Act, unless it is challenged in an appeal, the landholders are alone entitled to claim right in the land under the provisions of the Act. But no appeal is preferred against the declaration made by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, thereby the petitioner is not entitled to claim any right and insist respondent No.2 to register the document. In support of this contentions, learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "Gorle Appalana Nagarjuna v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1", based on the principle laid down in the above judgment, learned senior counsel requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points need to be answered by this Court are as follows:
(1) Whether refusal to register the pending document No.587 of 2019 presented by the petitioner, based on the letter addressed by respondent No.3 without issuing notification as mandated under sub-section 2 of Section 22-A of the Registration Act is legal and valid?
(2) Whether refusal to register the document during pendency of appeal before the appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 1 2001 (1) ALD 134 MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 10 and even before granting patta in favour of respondent No.3 is vaid?
P O I N T No.1:
The petitioner allegedly purchased land in an extent of 13789.85 sq.meters in Sy.No.8A/1D & 623/3C of Tirupati Village, Chintalachenu Area, Tirupati, Chittoor District, raised a construction in the name of "Temple town @ Tirupati", and executed a document for sale of flat No.1202, 12th Floor admeasuring 843 sft. in favour of Koppula Gayathri Rao and WG.CDR K.N. Rao on 21.11.2019 and presented the sale deed for registration, and the said document was assigned pending document No.587 of 2019. Finally, the Joint Sub- Registrar issued impugned letter dated 30.11.2019 refusing to register the document on the basis of the letter submitted by the Executive Officer of respondent No.3. It is also not in dispute that the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor in IDT No.19 of 2015 dated 27.08.2019 determined the land in Survey Nos.6,8,9, 12 and 623, T.S.No.4073 in T.D.No.2426 admeasuring Ac.188.32 cents as Inam land in Ryotwari Village, Tirupathi under Section 3 (3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of Inam Deputy Tahsildar, petitioners preferred an appeal No.G/1024/2019 under Section 3 (4) of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner is arrayed as appellant No.126. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, respondent No.3 herein is arrayed as respondent No.24 in the said appeal since the land in dispute is declared as land belonging to respondent No.3 herein. Thus, the determination of village as Inam Village is still subject matter of appeal and the determination by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar under Section 3 (3) of the Act has not attained finality.
MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 11 The reason assigned by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Tirupati in the intimation of refusal dated 30.11.2019 in letter No.R.o/Tpt/Refusal No.P 587/2019 is as follows:
"This is a sale deed document for Rs.26,97,600/- is presented for registration by Kallepalli Devendra Kumar authorised signatory to Mr.Bimal Kumar Kedia on behalf of M/s. Vasundhara Constructions Private Limited, Hyderabad before the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Tirupati and the same was kept pending as document No.P 587/2019 dated 23.11.2019. In the above document the property affected is apartment No.1202 admeasuring 843 square feet in Survey Numbers 8A/1D and 623/3C of Chintalachenu Area of Tirupati Revenue Village.
The Sub Registrar, Tirupati Urban is herewith refused the registration of the pending document No.587/2019 dated 23.11.2019, as the property involved in the document is in Revenue Survey Number 8A/1D and 623/3C of Tirupati Revenue Village, as per Executive Officer, TTD, Tirupati issued orders in Roc No.Prop 1/16696/AEO (Prop)/1991 dated 28.09.2019 orders issued not to entertain any transactions in Revenue Survey Numbers 6,8,9,12 and 623, TS No.4073 extent Ac.188.32 held by an institution i.e. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati while enclosing the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Collector's office, Chittoor Form II Decision (See Rule 3) in IDT No.19/2015 dated 27.08.2019. Accordingly, registration of the document P.No.587/2019 dated 23.11.2019 is refused for registration."
The basis for refusal to register the document presented by the petitioner is the letter addressed by the Executive Officer, TTD.
When a document is presented for registration before the Registrar, the Registrar has to register the document if it satisfies the legal requirements of Stamp and Registration laws. The Registrar may refuse to register the document only in the circumstances enumerated under Section 71 of the Registration Act or the registration of such document is prohibited by Section 22-A or 22-B of the Registration Act and when execution of document is denied by executant of document under Section 35 (3) of the Registration Act.
Though prohibition of document is created under Section 22-A or 22-B of the Registration Act and permits refusal of registration under Section 35 (3) of the Registration Act, these circumstances are MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 12 not included in Section 71 of the Registration Act. On strict construction of Section 71 of the Registration Act, refusal to register the document is permissible only when the property to which the document relates to is not situated within the sub-district but in no other circumstances.
Registration of instrument presented for registration can be refused under certain circumstances. Section 71 of the Registration Act, mandates recording of reasons when refused, which reads as follows:
Section 71 reads as under:-
"71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded:- (1) Every Sub- Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No.2, and endorse the words "registration refused" on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without W.P.No.18660 of 2013 payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.
(2) No Registering Officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered."
Reading of the above Section makes it clear that if the property is not situated within its jurisdiction, the Sub-Registrar can refuse registration without affording any reasons. However, if registration is refused for reasons other than above, then the Sub-
Registrar is required to record his reasons for such refusal in Book-II and endorse the words "registration refused" on the document on an application made by any person executing or claiming under the document.
Refusal order is passed on the basis of the letter addressed by the Executive Officer of respondent No.3. Registration of document MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 13 cannot be refused unless the property is notified under Section 22A of the Registration Act. Section 22-A of the Registration Act prohibits registration of certain documents. Relevant clause applicable to the present case is Section 22A (1) (e) of the Registration Act. According to it, any document 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 those interests.
Here, according to the order passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar under Section 3 (3) of the Act, the subject property is in Inam Village and an appeal is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the order passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar. As on today, no patta was granted in favour of institution i.e. temple under Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the property is belonging to the religious and charitable institution as per the determination of Inam Deputy Tahsildar. In such case, prohibition is permitted subject to issuing notification as mandated under sub-section (2) of Section 22A of the Registration Act. According to sub-section (2) of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 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 in the manner as may be prescribed. Therefore, if the document falls under clause (e) of sub- section (1) of Section 22A of the Registration Act, a notification is required to be issued; unless a notification is issued, prohibition MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 14 under Section 22A of the Registration Act cannot be applied. But as on date, no notification as mandated under sub-section (2) of Section 22A was issued. When an identical question came up before this Court in "C.Radhakrishnama Naidu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.24587 of 2014 dated 01.06.2015), it was held that in the absence of any notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, refusal to register the document is not valid.
According to Section 22-A (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. A notification refers to a Gazette notification in view of Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1891. Therefore, a Gazette notification is mandatory to include the properties under Section 22-A in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A (1) (e) of the Registration Act, but no such notification is admittedly issued as per the allegations made in the counter.
A similar issue came up before the Court in "Dr.Dinakar Mogili v. State of A.P.2" and "Guntur House Construction Co- operative Society Ltd., Guntur v. Tahsildar, Guntur Mandal3" and "C.Radhakrishnamma Naidu v. Government of A.P. and others4", where the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that "In the absence of a notification being issued by the State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 22A(1)(e) of the 2 2011 (6) ALD 502 3 2012 (2) ALT 647 4 2015(4) ALT 1 MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 15 Registration Act, the question whether the State Government has an avowed or accrued interest does not necessitate examination".
A similar issue is covered by another Judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in "T.Yedukondalu v. Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue5" and in another Judgment in "D.Bharathamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh6" and "Shaik Ali v. District Collector, Chittoor7", the Court held that "unless a notification under Section 22-A(2) read with Section 22-A (1) (e) is published, the Government can‟t claim that the land in question belongs to it and seek to stall registration of documents in respect thereof. Without putting in place a prohibition sourced in law, it is not for the authorities to refuse registration". If these principles have applied to the present facts of the case, in the absence of any notification as mandated under Clause (2) r/w 22-A (1) (e) of the Registration Act with full description, the inclusion of the lands, is illegal and arbitrary.
In "V.V.N.M. Raju v. Government of A.P. represented by Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration) Department8" refusal of registration of document was challenged and the Court held that the registering authority cannot refuse registration of properties not mentioned in Section 22A. It cannot classify any land into a particular category which is the function of the Revenue authorities. Land purchased by petitioner therein was assigned to his vendor as an ex-serviceman. Such land can be alienated after expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment. Transfer in favour of petitioner made about 12 years after assignment is not illegal. 5 2011 (4) ALD 43 6 2010 (5) ALD 444 7 2011 (2) ALD 48 8 2007 (5) ALT 466 MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 16 Registration, therefore, cannot be refused. Issue of impugned Memo by Inspector General of Registration not to register the land in question and some other lands treating them as Government lands when they are not prohibited under Section 22A of the Registration Act, is unsustainable.
Thus, the registering authority cannot expand the ambit of Section 22-A of the Registration Act to refuse the registration. Admittedly, in the present case, no notification as mandated under sub-section (2) of Section 22A of the Registration Act was issued though the property falls within Section 22A (1) (e) of the Registration Act subject to result of pending appeal. The reason for „notification‟ is for the benefit of public to know the nature of property. The word „notification‟ is not defined under the Registration Act. In such case, the Court must fall back on Section 21 of the A.P.General Clauses Act, where the meaning of notification is specified as "notification in the Official Gazette". Therefore, to attribute knowledge about the nature of property to the public, a „Gazette notification‟ is required. Here, except passing of order by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar and addressing letter by the Executive Officer of respondent No.3 to registering authority annexing a copy of the order passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, who determined the subject property as service inam for the service to be rendered to deity in respondent No.3 temple. Therefore, refusal to register the document on the basis of the letter addressed by the Executive Officer of respondent No.3 herein is against the purport of sub- section (2) of Section 22A of the Registration Act. Hence, the reason assigned by the Joint Sub Registrar for refusal to register the document is beyond the scope of Section 22 A of the Registration Act and the same is illegal since the Executive Officer of respondent MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 17 No.3 is persona non-grata i.e. an unacceptable or unwelcome person.
Therefore, refusal order passed by the Joint Sub Registrar refusing to register the document basing on the letter addressed by the Executive Officer of respondent No.3 is illegal, arbitrary and beyond the scope of Section 22A of the Registration Act. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
P O I N T No.2:
One of the major contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the respondents before this Court is that the petitioner allegedly purchased the property under the registered document, which is part and parcel of Inam village as determined by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar and the said finding of Inam Deputy Tahsildar is subject to appeal pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer. When once a particular land is declared as Inam, such land cannot be alienated. He placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "Gorle Appalana Nagarjuna v. Government of Andhra Pradesh" (referred supra), wherein the Court held that Under Section 3(1) of the Act, the Tahsildar may suo motu or on an application enquire and determine:
(i) whether a particular land in his jurisdiction is an inam land;
(ii) whether such inam land is in ryotwari, zamindari or inam village;
(iii) whether such inam land is held by any institution.
Under Section 3(2) the Tahsildar has to cause a notice to be published in the village or town where the inam lands are situate, in MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 18 the prescribed manner requiring every person or institution claiming an interest in any such inam land, to file before him, a statement of particulars in respect of items to determine the nature of land within the prescribed time. According to Section 3(3) the Tahsildar after giving the persons or institutions concerned a reasonable opportunity of adducing any evidence in support of their cases and after examining any relevant document in the possession of the Government has to determine whether the land in question can be classified in any of the three categories enumerated above. Under Section 3(4) any person or institution aggrieved by the order under Section 3(3) can file an appeal before the Revenue Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision. Under Section 3(5) the decision of the Revenue Court under sub-section (4), and in case no appeal is filed, the decision of the Tahsildar under sub- section (3) shall be final. Under Section 3(6) the decision of the Revenue Court or the Tahsildar as the case may be shall be published in the District Gazette at the earliest possible time. Under Section 3(7) every decision of the Revenue Court, or the Tahsildar is binding on all persons and institutions claiming interest in any such inam land, notwithstanding that such persons or institutions have not filed any application or statement, or adduced any evidence or appeared or participated in the proceedings before the Tahsildar or the Revenue Court as the case may be. Under Section 4 the inam lands have to be converted into ryotwari lands and the persons or institutions holding such land as inamdar on the date of commencement of the Act is entitled for a ryotwari patta.
In the said facts of the case, an order was passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, in the absence of any appeal, it is final. But, in the present case, an appeal is filed against the order of Inam Deputy MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 19 Tahsildar. Therefore, the said judgment of the learned single Judge has no direct application to the present facts of the case. There is absolutely no prohibition under the provisions of the Act to deal with the property during pendency of the appeal. However, this Court is not required to examine in detail about the effect of order passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar under Section 3 (3) of the Act as the refusal of registration of document by respondent No.2 is beyond the scope of Section 22A of the Registration Act.
Admittedly, except declaration under Section 3 (3) of the Act, no patta was granted under Section 7 of the Act. Until patta is granted in favour of respondent No.3 under Section 7 of the Act, by way of re-grant, respondent No.3 - institution is not competent to exercise any right over the property as an owner since the land is Inam land is deemed to be vested on the Government. Thus, as on date, no patta was granted in favour of respondent No.3. Therefore, addressing letter by the Executive Officer to respondent No.2 to refuse registration of the document on the ground that the order was passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar under Section 3 (3) of the Act, is unsustainable under law and it amounts to expanding or widening the scope of Section 22 A of the Registration Act. Therefore, refusal to register the document based on the letter of the Executive Officer of respondent No.3 even before issue of patta under Section 7 of the Act in favour of respondent No.3 is an illegality. Hence, on this ground also the impugned intimation of refusal letter dated 30.11.2019 is liable to be set aside.
In view of my detailed foregoing discussion in W.P.No.20541 of 2019, the impugned proceedings in writ petition No.133 of 2020 are also liable to be set aside.
MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020 20 In the result, Writ Petition No.20541 of 2019 is allowed declaring the intimation of refusal letter issued by respondent No.2 dated 30.11.2019 refusing registration of pending document No.587 of 2019 is illegal, arbitrary and the same is hereby set aside while directing respondent No.3 to take appropriate steps before the Revenue Divisional Officer for disposal of the appeal No.G/1024/2019. The Revenue Divisional Officer concerned is directed to dispose of the appeal No.G/1024/2019 within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to register the document within one (1) month after expiry of three (3) months fixed for disposal of appeal, as mere registration of document would not confer any title and it is subject to result of appeal pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer. No costs.
In view of the order passed in W.P.No.20541 of 2019, Writ Petition No.133 of 2020 is allowed declaring the letter issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar in C.No.156/1/2019 dated 16.12.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and the same is hereby set aside while directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to entertain the documents submitted by the petitioner for registering the mortgage deed in respect of the property situated in Sy.No.623/3C, Chinthalachenu, 19th Ward, Tirupati, Chittoor District, within four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 19.08.2021 Ksp