THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICDATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA : HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION NO.15041 OF 2019
BHEL EMPLOYEES MODEL MUTUALLY
AIDED CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING
SOCIETY LTD. ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Telangana rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat
Buildings, Hyderabad, Telangana State
and others ... Respondents
DATE OF THE JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 07.04.2021
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the judgment?
___________________________
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
____________________
T.VINOD KUMAR, J
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::2::
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTSICE T.VINOD KUMAR
+ WRIT PETITION NO.15041 OF 2019
% DATED 07th APRIL, 2021
# BHEL EMPLOYEES MODEL MUTUALLY
AIDED CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING
SOCIETY LTD. ... Petitioner
Vs.
$ State of Telangana rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat
Buildings, Hyderabad, Telangana State
and others ... Respondents
<Gist:
>Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri R.N.Hemendranath
Reddy
^Counsel for Respondents 1 to 6 : Govt. Pleader for Revenue
^Counsel for Respondent no.7 : Sri P. Harinath Reddy
^Counsel for Respondent no.8 : Sri C. Raghu
^Counsel for Respondent no.9 : Sri B. Vivekananda
? CASES REFERRED:
1. 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB)
2. A.P. State Electricity Board Employees Union v. Joint Collector,
Chittoor.... 2008 (1) ALD 29
3. Kulwant Singh Chatwal and others v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy
and others .... 2009 (6) ALD 68
4. (2018) 16 SCC 786, at page 790
5. AIR 1968 SC 1413
6. (2012) 8 S.C.C. 148 Para no.12
7. 2013 (3) A.L.T. 500
8. AIR 2017 A.P. 713
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::3::
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.15041 OF 2019
O R D E R:
(Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao) The background facts The petitioner is a Co-operative House Building Society registered on 05.06.2012 under the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995. It has about 1200 Members. It was constituted for the welfare of the employees of Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited (BHEL), Hyderabad and was formed to provide individual housing facilities to all its members by developing a housing scheme for its members.
2. M/s. SSPDL Limited is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and owns land in Osmannagar Village and Kollur Village of Ramachandrapuram Mandal of Medak District.
3. The petitioner society approached M/s. SSPDL and expressed their intention to provide housing units for the benefits of its members and requested SSPDL to develop the project by constructing individual houses/homes and convey the same to its members. The petitioner then entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dt.05.09.2004 with M/s. SSPDL under which each member of the petitioner society has to MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::4::
contribute about Rs.24,95,000/- per home/house totaling Rs.299.00 Crores for 1200 homes.
4. The petitioner society also entered into a sale agreement dt.31.10.2014 with M/s. SSPDL in respect of the said plots admeasuring 180 sq. yards each in the overall layout admeasuring Ac.88.26 gts. in Sy.No.30/Part of Osmannagar Village and in Sy.No.191/Part of Kollur Village within specific boundaries.
5. On 31.10.2014, petitioner society also entered into a construction agreement with M/s. SSPDL for the 1200 units at a cost of Rs.155.40 Crores.
6. According to the petitioner, M/s. SSPDL and others were absolute owners and possessors of Ac.93.04 gts. situated in Sy.No.30/Part, Osmannagar Village and in Sy.No.191/Part of Kollur Village of Ramachandrapuram Mandal in the Sangareddy District having purchased it under several registered sale deeds.
7. According to the petitioner, the lands in the above mentioned survey numbers were originally assigned in favour of several Ex- Servicemen in 1972 and thereafter those Ex-Servicemen/assignees duly transferred/sold the said lands to various persons/companies under various registered sale deeds as they were entitled to alienate the said assigned lands after expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment as per the policy of the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::5::
contained in G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department, dt.30.04.1963 and G.O.Ms.No.1117, Revenue (Assignment) Department, dt.11.11.1993.
8. According to the petitioner, on 05.09.2012 it paid Rs.24.00 Crores to the developer as initial payment and the developer M/s SSPDL applied on 03.04.2013 for a layout to the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (for short "HMDA") under Sections 19 and 20 of the HMDA Act, 2008 for undertaking construction of the proposed group houses in the above property.
9. Pursuant to the said application of the developer, the HMDA addressed a letter dt.20.12.2013 to the then District Collector of Medak District seeking instructions and clearance from revenue authorities for issuance of the layout permission.
letter dt.25.01.2014 of Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal
10. After due enquiry, the then Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal ( 4th respondent), through letter dt.25.01.2014 sent a detailed report to the District Collector, Medak stating that:
(i) on verification of the revenue records it is found that some of the ex-servicemen applied for allotment of Government land under ex- servicemen quota;
(ii) and thereafter some of the ex-servicemen alienated their assigned lands to various persons through registered sale deeds;
MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::6::
(iii) that mutation orders were also sanctioned in favour of purchasers and implemented in the Revenue records;
(iv) that the original assignees have sold their lands after completion of 20 years during 1992 to 2006;
(v) that they were free to sell their assigned lands after a period of 10 yrs as per G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.13.04.1963 and G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993; and
(vi) that the physical possession of schedule property is with the purchasers/applicants.
The release of tentative layout by HMDA on 12.2.2014
11. Basing on the said report submitted by the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent through Lr.No.E1/19/2014 dt.12.02.2014 has informed HMDA that the title of the land covering only an extent ofAc.5.09 gts in Sy. No.30/p of Osmannagar Village and Sy.No.191/p of Kollur village of Ramachandrapuram Mandal is under dispute and covered under litigation, and that title regarding remaining balance land of Ac.88.26 gts. in Sy. No. 30/p and 191/p is dispute free and the land is under possession of purchasers.
12. Thereafter, the HMDA issued proceedings approving draft layout and forwarded it to the Executive Authorities of Osmannagar Gram Panchayat and Kollur Gram Panchayat for taking necessary action as per powers delegated to such Local Bodies.
MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::7::
13. Pursuant to the above proceeding, the Panchayat Secretary of Kollur Gram Panchayat and the Panchayat Secretary of Osmannagar Gram Panchayat issued proceedings on 12.12.2014 releasing draft layout building permission subject to certain conditions. The sale deed dt.4.2.2015 in petitioner's favour
14. Subsequently, the purchasers from the Ex-Servicemen sold land to M/s SSPDL and others , and finally the petitioner purchased an extent of 2,09,211.72 sq. yds. (Ac.15.25 gts) consisting of 1155 plots in the above two villages for a total consideration of Rs.139,47,45,497/- under registered sale deed dt.04.02.2015 (Doc.No.4367 of 2015) by paying stamp duty of Rs.8.5 Crores apart from registration charges.
15. The petitioner contends that the petitioner society, having become the absolute owner and possessor of the above property, its members obtained loans from banks and financial institutions and contributed Rs.323.00 Crores allegedly to the developer for construction of houses. According to the petitioner, the developer also undertook construction of multiple housing units in the above land.
16. At that stage, the 7th respondent filed a complaint to the HMDA claiming right over Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.191/30 of Kollur Village.
17. On the basis of the said complaint, the HMDA issued proceedings No.101299/LO/PLG/HMDA/2013 dt.29.08.2015 unilaterally canceling its proceedings dt.03.07.2014 releasing draft layout which was addressed MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::8::
to the Executive Authorities of Osmannagar Gram Panchayat and Kollur Gram Panchayat.
order dt.22.09.2017 in W.P.No.41187 of 2015 and W.P.No.34940 of 2015
18. The petitioner questioned the same by filing W.P.No.41187 of 2015 and the developer SSPDL also filed W.P.No.34940 of 2015 challenging the above proceedings of the HMDA.
19. A learned Single Judge of this Court by order dt.22.09.2017 in W.P.No.34940 of 2015 and W.P.No.41187 of 2015 set aside the proceedings dt.29.08.2015 issued by the HMDA unilaterally canceling the draft layout permission etc. This Court held that the 1st respondent cannot decide questions of title to the property, that the Commissioner of HMDA had no such jurisdiction to decide the same, and that the said order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice without issuing a notice to the petitioner and to the developer. The Court referred to O.S.No.344 of 2012 filed by the 7th respondent against the petitioner society for perpetual injunction and held that the parties will have to establish their right, title and possession before the Civil Court.
20. According to the petitioner, the developer M/S SSPDL then completed construction of the houses and handed them over to the petitioner society, and the petitioner society allotted the same to its members and even executed conveyance deeds conveying right and title to individual members.
MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::9::
Endorsements dt.17.06.2019 of respondent no.6 refusing to register conveyances quoting the list communicated by the 2nd respondent under Sec.22A of the Registration Act,1908
21. When two such conveyance deeds were presented on 22.05.2019 before the Joint Sub-Registrar-II, RO (OB), Sangareddy, Sangareddy District, Telangana State (6th respondent), he rejected registration of the same vide separate Endorsements dt.17.06.2019 stating that the land in Sy.No.30/1, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 22 other survey numbers are included/found in the list of prohibitory properties issued under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 by the District Collector, Sangareddy District (2nd respondent) vide Letter No.D1/1221/16 dt.13.02.2017.
Letter No.D1/1221/16 dt.13.02.2017 of 2nd respondent
22. The said letter dt.13.02.2017 is addressed by the 2nd respondent to the District Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department of Sangareddy District and merely states that the former had returned Section 22A Lists communicated by the 2nd respondent earlier, that there is a judgment in W.A.Nos.343 of 2015, 232 of 2012 and 352 of 2013 dt.23.12.2015 and 29.01.2016 and in view of the same, the Lists are once again communicated to the District Registrar for taking necessary action.
23. The above judgment in W.A.Nos.343 of 2015, 232 of 2012 and 352 of 2013 dt.23.12.2015 and 29.01.2016 was reported in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others v. Principal Secretary, Revenue MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::10::
Department, Hyderabad and others1. We shall discuss about this decision in the later part of the judgment.
Order dt.11.7.2019 of the 5th respondent
24. Questioning the Endorsement dt.22.05.2019 of the 6th respondent refusing to register the two conveyances, the individual members of the society filed two statutory appeals under Section 71 of the registration Act,1908 before the District Registrar, Sangareddy (5th respondent) who also dismissed it on 11.07.2019 simply stating that the Sy. Nos. covered by plots under transfer are prohibited properties under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 as listed by the District Collector, Sangareddy in his letter dt.13.02.2017 and the action of the 6th respondent refusing registration of the document was upheld.
Contentions of petitioner
25. According to the petitioner, it discovered that in the list issued by the 2nd respondent on 13.02.2017 prohibiting registration under Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, the lands purchased by the petitioner society are mentioned ; and in the tabular column in the Appendix, under 'Col.10', with heading 'Act under prohibited', it was mentioned 'Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977'.
1 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::11::
26. According to the petitioner, though the subject lands purchased by the society were originally assigned to Ex-Servicemen, the Ex- Servicemen were entitled to transfer the same after expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment; and they had sold their assigned land after almost 20 years from the date of assignment; and so Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 is not at all attracted, and consequently the subject lands cannot be put in the prohibitory list quoting Section 22A(1)(a) of the Act. The stand of respondents 1 to 6 and it's consideration by the Court:
27. Before we refer to the contentions of the 2nd respondent and consider the same, we shall first note Section 22-A (as amended in the State of Telangana) in so far as it is relevant for our purpose. It states:
"22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain documents.-(1) The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namely:
(a) documents relating to transfer of immoveable property, the alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the State or Central Government;
(b) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of immoveable property owned by the State or Central Government, executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so;
(c) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten) 10 years in respect of immoveable property, owned by Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or by MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::12::
Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995 executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so;
(d) agricultural or urban lands declared as surplus under the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 or the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976;
(e) 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.
(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.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issued under clause (e) of sub-section (1).
(4) The State Government either suo motu or on an application by any person or for giving effect to the final orders of the High Court of Telangana or Supreme Court of India may proceed to de-notify, either in full or in part, the notification issued under sub-section (2)."
28. Thus under this provision there is power to prohibit registration of certain classes of documents enumerated therein. In particular, there is requirement of a Notification being published by the State Government after obtaining details from District Collectors in respect of document mentioned in Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, though we are not concerned in this case with the said category.
MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::13::
29. We are concerned with Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 22-A i.e., documents relating to transfer of immovable property, the alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the State or Central Government.
30. According to the stand of the respondents 1 to 6, the lands claimed by the petitioner and M/s. SSPDL are assigned lands which are prohibited from alienation under Sec.3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The said provision states:
"3. Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands:- (1) Where before or after the commencement of this Act any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purpose of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed to transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred, and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. (2) No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise.
(3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provision of sub-section (1) of sub-section (2) [or subsection (2-A)] shall be deemed to be null and void...."
31. Under the said statute, the term "assigned land" is defined in Section 2(1) as under:
""assigned lands" means lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor persons under the Rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non-alienation and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::14::
time being in force relating to land ceiling; and the word "assigned" shall be construed accordingly."
We are not concerned with the explanation given thereunder in the instant case.
32. Thus only for lands which are assigned to landless poor which contain a condition of non-alienation, the prohibition contained in Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1971, is attracted2.
33. As far as lands assigned to Ex-Servicemen are concerned, initially the then State of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 providing for assignment of land to Ex-Servicemen with a condition that the land assigned should not be sold or otherwise alienated for a period of 10 years and the extent permitted for assignment was Ac.2.50 (wet) or Ac.5.00 (dry).
34. This was modified in G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993 and the Ex-Servicemen were permitted to sell away their assigned lands after a period of 10 years freely without even seeking permission of the Government.
35. The scheme of assignment of land to Ex-Servicemen was intended by the State to work as an incentive for persons who want to join the Army, and also as a way to pay gratitude to those who risked their lives 2 A.P. State Electricity Board Employees Union v. Joint Collector, Chittoor.... 2008 (1) ALD 29 MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::15::
in defending the country against heavy odds being away from their families during the better part of their life3.
36. But if the condition of non-alienation is for a limited period of time, as in the case of Ex-Servicemen, i.e. only for 10 years from the date of assignment, and if the transfer is made by the Ex-Serviceman after the said period, such land cannot be prohibited from transfer and the above statute has no application.
37. It is the contention of the petitioner that initially the lands claimed by it had been assigned to Ex-Servicemen who had alienated the same after completion of 10 years from the date of assignment and that there were several transfers before the petitioner acquired title to the land. According to the petitioner, there is no condition in force prohibiting alienation after the expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment to Ex-Servicemen, and consequently the land purchased by the petitioner cannot fall in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 22-A. The decision of the Full Bench in Vinjamuri Rajagopalachary and others ( 1 supra)
38. We may point out that Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as amended in the State of Telangana fell for consideration in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others (1 supra). In the said judgment, the Full Bench formulated two questions: 3
Kulwant Singh Chatwal and others v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy and others .... 2009 (6) ALD 68 MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::16::
"(a) What are the prerequisites that are to be satisfied for applying any one or more of clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act to any document dealing with alienation or transfer by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease, etc. in respect of immovable property presented for registration?
"(b) Under what circumstances, the act of the Registering Authority concerned (District Registrar or Sub-Registrar) in refusing from registration of the aforementioned document/s by applying any one or more of the prohibitory clauses (a) to (e) under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act can be said to be justified?
39. The Full Bench then answered the said questions in the following manner:
"(i) The authorities mentioned in the guidelines, which are obliged to prepare lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d), to be sent to the Registering Authorities under the provisions of the Registration Act, shall clearly indicate the relevant clause under which each property is classified.
(ii) Insofar as clause (a) is concerned, the District Collectors concerned shall also indicate the statute under which a transaction and its registration is prohibited. Further in respect of the properties covered under clause (b), they shall clearly indicate which of the Governments own the property.
(iii) Insofar as Paras (3) and (4) in the Guidelines, covering properties under clauses (c) and (d) are concerned, the authorities contemplated therein shall also forward to the Registering Authorities, along with lists, the extracts of registers/gazette if the property is covered by either endowment or wakf, and declarations/orders made under the provisions of the Ceiling Acts if the property is covered under clause (d).
(iv) The authorities forwarding the lists of properties/lands to the Registering Authority shall also upload the same to the website of both the Governments, namely, igrs.ap.gov.in of the State of Andhra Pradesh and registration.telangana.gov.in of the State of Telangana. If there is any change in the website, the State Governments shall MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::17::
indicate the same to all concerned, may be by issuing a press note or an advertisement in prominent daily newspapers.
(v) No notification, contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 22- A, is necessary with respect to the properties falling under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A.
(vi) The properties covered under clause (e) of Section 22-A shall be notified in the Official Gazette of the State Governments and shall be forwarded, along with the list of properties, and a copy of the relevant notification/gazette, to the Registering Authorities concerned under the provisions of the Registration Act and shall also place the said notification/gazette on the aforementioned websites of both the State Governments. The Registering Authorities shall make available a copy of the Notification/Gazette on an application made by an aggrieved party.
(vii) The Registering Authorities would be justified in refusing registration of documents in respect of the properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A provided the authorities contemplated under the Guidelines, as aforementioned, have communicated the lists of properties prohibited under these clauses.
(viii) The authorities concerned, which are obliged to furnish the lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, and the Registering Officers concerned shall follow the Guidelines scrupulously.
(ix) It is open to the parties to a document, if the relevant property/land finds place in the list of properties covered by clauses
(a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, to apply for its deletion from the list or modification thereof, to the authorities concerned as provided for in the Guidelines. The authorities concerned are obliged to consider the request in proper perspective and pass appropriate order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the application and make its copy available to the party concerned.
(x) The redressal mechanism under Section 22-A(4) shall be before the Committees to be constituted by respective State Governments as directed in para 35.1 above. The State Governments shall constitute such committees within eight weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.
MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::18::
(xi) Apart from the redressal mechanism, it is also open to an aggrieved person to approach appropriate forum including civil court for either seeking appropriate declaration or deletion of his property/land from the list of prohibited properties or for any other appropriate relief.
(xii) The directions issued by learned Single Judges in six judgments2 referred to above or any other judgments dealing with the provisions of Section 22-A, if are inconsistent with the observations made or directions issued in this judgment, it is made clear that the observations made and directions issued in this judgment shall prevail and would be binding on the parties including the Registering Authorities under the Registration Act or government officials or the officials under the Endowments Act, Wakf Act and Ceiling Acts.
(xiii) If the party concerned seeks extracts of the list/register/gazette of properties covered by clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A(1), received by the Registering Officer on the basis of which he refused registration, it shall be furnished within 10 days from the date of an application made by the aggrieved party.
(xiv) Registering Officer shall not act and refuse registration of a document in respect of any property furnished to him directly by any authority/officer other than the officers/authorities mentioned in the Guidelines.
(xv) Mere registration of a document shall not confer title on the vendee/alienee, if the property is otherwise covered by clauses (a) to
(e), but did not find place in the lists furnished by the authorities concerned to the Registering Officers. In such cases, the only remedy available to the authorities under clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A is to approach appropriate forums for appropriate relief."
5. After issuing the above directions, the matters have been remitted to the Bench concerned for considering other issues including the validity of Section 22-A of the Act."
MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::19::
The Supreme court decision in Siri Nivasam Mutual Aided House Building Society
40. The above judgment of the Full Bench of the Hyderabad High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court in Siri Nivasam Mutual Aided House Building Society Ltd. v. State of A.P.4
41. The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the High Court holding that the main issue relating to the vires of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 is pending before the High Court by giving certain directions as under, making it clear that the impugned order of the Full Bench shall not stand in its way. It said:
"6. The learned counsel for the State points out that the main issue pending before the High Court is the vires of Section 22-A of the Act. All the contentions now sought to be raised by the appellants are, in fact, the subject-matter of the challenge before the High Court. However, we find that some of the appellants before this Court are not parties before the High Court. Since the main issue is pending before the High Court, we deem it appropriate to remit these matters to the High Court. Those persons who are parties before this Court, but not parties to the pending writ petitions in the High Court, may get themselves impleaded by way of appropriate application(s) for impleadment/intervention, etc., or may even file fresh writ petitions.
7. We note that in all these appeals, registration has been permitted making it subject to the result of the appeals with a further condition that no further registration shall take place without permission from the Court. It is ordered that the registration already permitted by this Court shall be treated as a provisional registration subject to the result of the writ petitions now pending before the High Court. We make it clear that merely because a provisional registration has been permitted, the parties shall not claim any additional equity. We further make it clear that without express permission from the High Court, there shall be no 4 (2018) 16 SCC 786, at page 790 MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::20::
further transfer. In order to avoid further difficulty to the similarly situated people, we make it clear that it will be open to them to approach the High Court and seek appropriate and similar interim orders regarding transfers during the pendency of the writ petitions.
8. The learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the same mechanism for redressal under Section 22-A(1)(e) may be made applicable as far as the grievance in respect of Sections 22-A(1)(a) to (d) is concerned. It is pointed out that even in respect of the orders which have otherwise become final, they would be relegated to the same authority and will be subject to further revision/appeal, etc. This is also a matter to be considered by the High Court when the writ petitions are finally heard. Therefore, we permit the parties to raise this contention also before the Bench concerned while considering the vires of the section, in order to reach a workable solution. The Court may consider the issue on its own merit and the impugned order shall not stand in that way.
9. We further make it clear that we have not otherwise considered the matter on merits. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of." (emphasis supplied)
42. Thus, the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Siri Nivasam Mutual Aided House Building Society Ltd. (2 supra) is that the Full Bench order in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others (1 supra) came to be set aside, and the matters were all remitted to the High Court with the above directions. Thus the ratio of the said decision has been wiped out by the order of the Supreme Court. Consideration of stand of respondents 1 to 6
43. We shall now deal with the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 6 through the District Collector, Sangareddy (2nd respondent).
MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::21::
44. In para-3 of the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, Sangareddy (2nd respondent), he admitted that an extent of Acs.195.00 gts. in Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar Village and an extent of Ac. 298.05 gts. of land in Sy.No.191 of Kollur Village were originally classified as "Mahasura" lands which allegedly means 'forest lands'; and out of the said extent, Acs.143.39 gts. in Sy.No.191 of Kollur village and Acs.93.01 gts. in Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar village, totaling to Acs.237.00 gts. was assigned to 79 persons in 1972-73 onwards and that their names were also mutated in revenue records.
45. Having said so, it is then stated that the records relating to the individual assignees are "not available".
46. What the 2nd respondent means by the words "not available" is not explained and is deliberately left vague.
47. Whether the records of assignment are misplaced or lost or destroyed, is not specified. How the records became "not available" is not explained. Why high officials such as the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Govt. of Telangana ( 1st respondent) and the District Collector, Sanga Reddy ( 2nd respondent) cannot have access to the said record should be explained to this Court.
48. The District Collector, being the Head of the Revenue Department of the District, is the custodian of the revenue records including those MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::22::
relating assignment of lands. The District Collector cannot be permitted to suppress the said record by stating that they are not available.
If the record had got misplaced, what steps have been taken by the District Collector to trace the said record or initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the officials responsible for non-availability of the records, is also not spoken to by the District Collector.
49. In Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar vs. Mohamed Haji Latif and others5, the Supreme Court declared that even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party, the Court may draw an adverse inference against him if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue; that it is not in its opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof. This principle was reiterated in Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin6.
The State, as custodian of the records cannot thus be permitted to take stand that the "records are not available" without saying whether they are mis-placed, lost or destroyed and seek to put the subsequent purchasers like the petitioners and M/s.SSPDL to disadvantage. 5 AIR 1968 SC 1413 6 (2012) 8 S.C.C. 148 Para no.12 MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::23::
50. It is then stated in para 3 of the counter affidavit by District Collector that these assignments were made as per terms and conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue, dated 25.07.1958 and that the land assigned under the said policy is only heritable, but not alienable.
If the records relating to the individual assignments are "not available", the respondents should explain on what basis this assertion that those assignments were made as per G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue, dated 25.07.1958, and were only heritable, but not alienable, is being made. No such explanation is forthcoming from the respondents.
51. It is next stated by the District Collector in the counter affidavit that "most of the assignees of the above said lands, taking advantage of the assignments made in the same survey number to the genuine Ex- Servicemen and political sufferers, disposed the property in favour of third parties, claiming the assignments were made under the Ex- Servicemen quota relying on relaxations granted to such category of assignees under G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 and G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993".
Again we wish to state that no basis for the above statement is forthcoming and in the absence of available records, we are of the opinion that such an assertion by the District Collector has no value.
52. The District Collector further stated that when an adverse news item was published in Andhra Jyothi Daily Newspaper dt. 15.07.2014, MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::24::
his predecessor had called for a report from the office of the Tahsildar regarding nature of the land and its classification and assignment particulars, and that the then Tahsildar vide letter No.B/5791/2012 had submitted a detailed report.
Deliberately, the date of Tahsildar's letter is omitted to be mentioned in the counter affidavit.
The said letter addressed by the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal to the District Collector, Medak is filed at page-10 along with the counter affidavit filed by him and it bears the date "25.01.2014".
Since the date of said letter is prior to the date of newspaper article i.e. 15.07.2014, the District Collector is not correct in stating that the Tahsildar had sent the said repot after the Newspaper item was published.
53. In para-3 of the counter affidavit, it is then stated by the District Collector that the Tahsildar in his letter had stated that the assigned lands were purchased under agreement of sale; that several individuals also purchased the property and M/s.SSPDL had purchased Acs.21.37 gts. in Sy.No.191 of Kollur village and in Sy.No.30 of Osmanagar village through registered sale deeds, and that mutation was also sanctioned for extent of Acs.119.18 gts. under A.P. Record of Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.
MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::25::
In fact the letter No.B/55791/2012 dt.25.04.2014 of the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal states that, on verification of records, it is found that some of the Ex-servicemen persons, who served the Nation, had applied for allotment of Government land in their favour under Ex- servicemen quota and thereafter, during 1992-2006 some of the Ex- servicemen persons alienated their assigned lands to various person through registered sale deeds and mutation orders were also sanctioned in favour of the purchasers and implemented in revenue records. It is further mentioned that the land was assigned to Ex-servicemen in the year 1972 and the sales were took place from 1992-2006 i.e. after completion of 20 years from the date of assignment; thereafter, the alienation transactions took place against the lands are not contravened to the provisions in vogue by the time and conditions of assignment have been met. It is also stated that as per the revenue records and physical possession, M/s.SSPDL and others are in possession of the land in Sy.No.191 of Kollur village and Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar Village.
The above contents are not referred to in para 3 of the counter affidavit and an edited version thereof only is mentioned.
54. Also, when the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal in his report dt.25.01.2014 sent to the District Collector, Medak specifically asserted, on verification of the record, that the land was assigned to Ex- servicemen in the year 1972 and the sales were took place from 1992- 2006 i.e. after completion of 20 years from the date of assignment, and MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::26::
that the alienation transactions which took place against the lands are not in contravention to the provisions in vogue by the time, and conditions of assignment have been met, the District Collector deliberately omits to state in the counter affidavit that the land claimed by the petitioner was originally assigned to Ex-Servicemen.
55. It is clear that the District Collector, without verification of any record, since such a record is not available, is trying to mislead the Court and give an impression that the predecessors-in-title of petitioner are not Ex-Servicemen (who can alienate after 10 years without Government permission), but ordinary landless poor assignees (who cannot alienate).
56. Moreover, when the records relating to assignment were available by 25.01.2014 to the Tahisldar ( when he sent the said report to the District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy), how the said records became unavailable by the time the 2nd respondent filed the counter affidavit on 15.02.2021, is not explained.
57. In para-4 of the counter affidavit, the District Collector stated that certain complaints were received by the District Administration against the irregular mutations and transfers of the assigned lands in favour of individuals and Companies and that acting on the same, the Joint Collector conducted enquiry against certain individual assignees and others and issued orders resuming the lands vide proceedings No.E1/1070/2016, dated 10.10.2016, Proceedings No.F3/5216/2011 and F3/87(Assignment)/2007, dated 05.02.2015 and Proceedings MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::27::
No.E1/2662/2014, dated 24.04.2015. It is then stated that aggrieved by the said proceedings, the assignees and their successors in interest filed writ petitions and the same were pending for adjudication.
The District Collector has not chosen to file any of these orders and also did not choose to name the individual assignees whose assignments were cancelled.
The District Collector suppressed the above referred official proceedings and appears to be trying to cast a doubt on the genuineness of the claim for title made by the petitioners and its purchasers unnecessarily, and his conduct, in our opinion, cannot be said to be bonafide.
58. Moreover, if the assignments themselves have occurred in 1972 and the alienations took place from 1992 onwards, and the land changed hands more than once by the time proceedings for resumption of land were initiated in 2011 and thereafter, whether the original assignees were served any notices by the State authorities before passing such orders, is highly doubtful.
59. In para-5 of the counter affidavit, the facts narrated by the petitioner have been set out by the 2nd respondent.
60. In para-6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated by the District Collector that meanwhile, the Government, taking note of irregular transfers of assigned lands constituted a Task Force Committee under MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::28::
the Chairmanship of S.K. Sinha, I.A.S., former Special Chief Secretary to enquire into the irregular transfers and mutations of lands in Sy.Nos.191 and 30 of Kollur and Osmannagar Villages. It is also stated that the Task Force Committee submitted a detailed report to the Government on 28.07.2016.
On what basis the said Committee conducted enquiry when the records relating to the assignments in these two survey numbers were admittedly "not available", is not disclosed by the District Collector.
Though an extract of the report has been filed along with the counter affidavit by the District Collector, the contents of the report are general in nature and not specific as regards the land claimed by the petitioner though there is a reference to Sy.No.191 of Kollur Village and Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar Village which together cover Ac.480.00. The contents of the said report are not useful to the State.
61. If there was really any violation of conditions of assignment of lands by the assignees, who had been assigned land in 1972, why the State had allowed so many alienations by way of registered transactions to take place and also effected mutation in revenue record of the names of the purchasers, is not explained. It is also not explained what the officials of the State were doing over the last 40 years if such violation of conditions of assignment allegedly took place.
62. It is then contended by the District Collector in para-6 that since the property claimed by the petitioner and its alleged Developer M/s MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::29::
SSPDL forms part of Sy.No.30 of the Osmannagar village and Sy.No.191 of Kollur village, and the entire extents in these survey numbers are subject matter of the enquiry, the same were included as prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
63. Only if the subject land was prohibited from alienation, the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 would apply and such land can be included in any prohibitory list under Sec.22-A (1) (a) by the District Collector/State Government.
64. When the report of the Tahsildar dt.25.01.2014 specifically states that the lands were sold after 10 years from the date of assignment made to Ex-Servicemen, there is no basis for the respondents 1 to 6 to contend that there were justified in including them in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(1) (a) of the Registration Act, 1908.
65. In para-7 of his counter, the District Collector states that the petitioner should have filed an application or representation under Sub- section (4) of Section 22 for reconsideration of the entire issue.
This plea is without any merit because there is no record of assignment available with the respondents 1 to 6 for them to reconsider the issue even if such an application were to be filed under Sub-Section (4) of Sec.22A; and in any event, a provision to make an application, cannot be said to be in the nature of an alternative remedy, barring the filing of Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::30::
66. An ingenuous argument was also raised by the Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent nos.1 to 6, i.e., that assuming that the assignees were ex-servicemen from whom the petitioners' predecessors-in-title purchased the subject property, such assignments were not granted as per G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993, which permitted alienation by the ex-servicemen assignees after ten years, and that such assignments were only made under G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue dt.25.07.1958 which prohibited alienation of assigned land and only made it heritable.
67. As stated above, there is no assignment record available with the respondent nos.1 to 6.
68. So, it is not possible for the respondents 1 to 6 to speculate/imagine under which G.O. the ex-servicemen were actually assigned the lands. On what basis the learned Government Pleader for Revenue is presuming that the assignments to the ex-servicemen were made under G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue dt.25.07.1958, is not stated by him. In our opinion, such a contention cannot be raised without any factual basis.
69. Even otherwise, if there is an assignment of land to a person, who is an ex-servicemen, and he is a landless poor person entitled for assignment, even if by some error, the said assignment was made quoting G.O.Ms.No.1406 Revenue dt.25.07.1958 and not mentioning MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::31::
G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 or G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993, we are of the opinion that the assignees, who are admittedly ex-servicemen are still entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993 despite the existence of any condition in the Deed of Assignment prohibiting alienation.
70. Similar view has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ande Narasimha Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh7, and by the High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Thatisetty Kusuma Kumari and others vs. Sub-Registrar, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam District and others8.
71. In Ande Narasimha Rao (7 supra), an ex-servicemen was granted assignment of land by the State without mentioning G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963. The assignment deed also contained a condition prohibiting transfer of property while permitting enjoyment of the same by inheritance.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that despite existence of the said condition, the petitioner is still entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993 and he was entitled to sell away the assigned land after ten years from the date of assignment. 7 2013 (3) A.L.T. 500 8 AIR 2017 A.P. 713 MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::32::
It held that such land cannot be included in the prohibitory register and the registering authorities cannot refuse to register the deed transferring the same.
In that case also, like in the instant case, the Darkhast file (i.e., the Record of Assignment) was missing, and the Court held that the missing of the file cannot be to the disadvantage of the petitioner.
72. In Thatisetty Kusuma Kumari (8 supra), the husband of the petitioner was admittedly an ex-servicemen and he had been assigned land during his lifetime. After his death, the petitioner and his children wanted to alienate the said land, but the Sub-Registrar refused to register it on the ground that it was included in the list of prohibited properties communicated under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 by the District Collector to him. There was also an order passed by the District Collector refusing to delete the said land from the prohibitory list.
The High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh (one of us, i.e., MSR,J had rendered the said decision) held that firstly only the State Government under Section 22A(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 can de-notify either in full or part any property which has been notified under sub-Section (1) (a) of Section 22A, and the District Collector has no such jurisdiction to pass any order refusing to delete the said land from the Prohibitory Register.
Though there was a condition prohibiting alienation in the Deed of Assignment granted to the petitioner's husband, this Court held that MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::33::
since there is no dispute that he was an ex-servicemen, he was entitled to assignment as per G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 and G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993 and the condition in the Deed of Assignment prohibiting alienation cannot override these Government Orders.
It also held that instead of assigning the land to the husband of petitioner under G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963, which entitled ex- servicemen to assignment of land, without application of mind, the District Collector had assigned the land invoking G.O.Ms.No.1142 Revenue Department dt.18.06.1954 applicable in Andhra Area. It held that for the mistake done by the respondents in assigning land to an ex- servicemen by quoting the wrong G.O., his family cannot be made to suffer; and that the State also cannot discriminate between ex- servicemen who obtained assignment under G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 and those who were assigned land quoting G.O.Ms.No.1142 Revenue Department dt.18.06.1954. It held that all ex- servicemen form part of the same class and there would be no intelligible differentia to distinguish one category of ex-servicemen from the other category and it would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India if there were to be such discrimination.
73. We respectfully approve the decisions in Ande Narasimha Rao (7 supra) and Thatisetty Kusuma Kumari (8 supra) and follow the same and hold that even if there is a clause prohibiting alienation in the deeds of assignment issued to the ex-servicemen, from whom the MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::34::
petitioner's predecessors-in-title purchased the subject land, such a clause will not prevail over G.O.Ms.No.743 Revenue Department dt.30.04.1963 and G.O.Ms.No.1117 Revenue Department dt.11.11.1993, and such assignee / ex-servicemen / their family members can alienate the assigned land after ten years from the date of assignment without seeking any permission from the State Government.
74. The 7th respondent had filed along with his implead application I.A.No.2 of 2019 in this Writ Petition, as Ex.R.7, copy of Supplementary Sethwar and Assignment Phodi giving list of 83 ex-servicemen assignees of land in Kollur Village of the then Sangareddy Taluq, and the extents of land assigned to them in Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar Village and Sy.No.191 of Kollur Village prepared by the Dy. Surveyor, Assistant Director, Survey Department and the Joint Collector, Medak District.
He had also filed along with his counter-affidavit copy of proceedings No.B1/1533/75 dt.10.09.1975 issued by the District Revenue Officer, Medak at Sanga Reddy (Ex.R.7) containing therein the list of ex-servicemen from Serial No.166 to 246 (81 persons) who were entitled to assignment in Osmannagar Village.
He has also filed proceedings L.R.No.C3/3734/2007 dt.18.07.2007, D1/7288/07 dt.25.07.2007 which is a report of the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy to the District Collector, Medak in respect of lands purchased by M/s. SSPDL under sale deed MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::35::
dt.28.08.2006 (Document No.19918 of 2006) for Acs.10.29 gts. in Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar and Acs.13.39 gts. in Sy.No.191 of Kollur Village and sale deed dt.24.06.2006 (Document No.15441 of 2006) for an extent of Acs.20.095 gts. in Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar Village. In the said document he considered the request for transfer of patta in favour of M/s.SSPDL and recorded the fact that the land was originally Government land assigned to ex-servicemen in 1972 and was purchased by M/s.SSPDL's vendors and had also given a flow chart. He categorically mentioned that all alienations occurred only after expiry of ten years from 1993 and recommended to the District Collector to sanction mutation in favour of M/s.SSPDL. On the basis of the said recommendation, the Collector, Medak addressed letter dt.12.02.2008 to the Principal Secretary (Revenue) seeking clarification whether the sale transactions are valid or not.
He has also filed proceedings I/3289/08 dt.03.10.2008 issued by the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram granting mutation to M/s.SSPDL for an extent of Acs.20.09 ½ in Survey No.30/P of Osmannagar Village.
75. These documents prima facie prove the case of the petitioner and the private respondent nos.7 to 9 that the land in Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar Village and Sy.No.191 of Kollur Village was assigned to ex-servicemen and that they had alienated the lands after the expiry of ten years from the dates of assignments.
MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::36::
76. None of the above documents are disputed by the learned Government Pleader, appearing for respondent nos.1 to 6.
77. So, notwithstanding the fact that respondent nos.1 to 6 contend that the Record of Assignment of these lands is "not available", there is enough material to hold that the prohibition for assignment of these lands under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 is not attracted to the said land since the alienations were made by the ex-servicemen more than ten years after the dates of assignment.
78. Consequently, the respondent nos.1 to 6 are not entitled to put these lands in the Prohibitory Register invoking sub-Section (1)(a) of Section 22A of the Act.
79. Therefore, proceedings / Letter No.D1/1221/2016 dt.13.02.2017 issued by the District Collector, Sangareddy District is set aside insofar as lands in Sy.No.30/P of Osmannagar Village and Sy.No.191/P of Kollur Village are concerned.
80. Respondent nos.4 to 6 are directed to register the conveyance deeds / sale deeds executed by the petitioner-Society in favour of its members in respect of the houses constructed / built in land covered by sale deed dt.04.02.2015 (Document No.4367 of 2015) on the file of District Registrar, Sangareddy if they are presented by the petitioner- Society subject to compliance with all other formalities relating to payment of stamp duty and registration charges without objecting that MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::37::
the land covered by the said documents is mentioned in the proceedings / Letter No.D1/1221/2016 dt.13.02.2017 issued by the District Collector, Sangareddy District.
81. Though respondent nos.7 to 9 have disputed the title of the petitioner to the land claimed by it, they supported the petitioner's case insofar as the petitioner had challenged inclusion of the lands in Sy.No.30/P of Osmannagar Village and Sy.No.191/P of Kollur Village and adopted the contentions of counsel for petitioner.
82. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the right, title or interest of respondent nos.7 to 9 vis-à-vis the petitioner, and the same would have to be decided in an appropriate forum in an appropriate proceeding uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.
83. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.15041 of 2019 is allowed; proceedings / Letter No.D1/1221/2016 dt.13.02.2017 issued by the District Collector, Sangareddy District is set aside insofar as lands in Sy.No.30/P of Osmannagar Village and Sy.No.191/P of Kollur Village are concerned; Respondent nos.4 to 6 are directed to register the conveyance deeds / sale deeds executed by the petitioner-Society in favour of its members in respect of the houses constructed / built in land covered by sale deed dt.04.02.2015 (Document No.4367 of 2015) on the file of District Registrar, Sangareddy if they are presented by the petitioner-Society subject to compliance with all other formalities MSR,J & TVK,J wp_15041_2019 ::38::
relating to payment of stamp duty and registration charges without objecting that the land covered by the said documents is mentioned in the proceedings / Letter No.D1/1221/2016 dt.13.02.2017 issued by the District Collector, Sangareddy District; and the respondents 1 to 6 shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner.
84. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J _______________________ T.VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 07.04.2021 Note: L.R. copies to be marked.
B/o Svv/Ndr