M.Venkatapathi Naidu, Chittoor ... vs Prl Secy, Revenueendowments ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3071 AP

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                        W.P.No.25157 of 2017

ORDER:

The facts relating to the present case are -

Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt (for short „the Mutt‟) Tirupati was the

absolute owner of Ac.3.80 cents in Sy.No.396 and Ac.4.62 cents in

Sy.No.435 aggregating to Ac.8.42 cents of land in Kattamanchi Village,

Chittoor Mandal and District. This land was initially leased out to one

M. Pachiappa Mudaliar by way of a public auction conducted on

10.09.1971 for an annual rent of Rs.1700/- for a period of six years and

the same was approved by the then Commissioner, Endowments

Department. Since the said M. Pachiappa Mudaliar defaulted in payment

of lease amount, O.S.No.344 of 1975 was filed by the Mutt in the District

Munsif Court, Chittoor, for recovery of lease amount and possession of the

property. While the suit was pending disposal, Sri M. Pachiappa Mudaliar

inducted the petitioner into the possession of the land by way of an

unregistered agreement dated 19.12.1979. After coming into possession

of the land, the petitioner obtained a fresh lease with the Mutt for a

period of six years from 19.12.1979 to 18.12.1985 on an annual lease

amount of Rs.4525/- and the same was approved by the Commissioner,

Endowment Department, by proceedings in L.Dis.No.A2/18920/80-2,

dated 22.04.1980. The petitioner is said to have paid the arrears of

Rs.17,427/- against the lease amounts payable by Sri M. Pachiappa

Mudaliar and this payment was also said to have been ratified by the

Commissioner, Endowment Department, by proceedings dated 29.04.1980

and permission was granted to withdraw O.S.No.344 of 1975 and the

same was also withdrawn by the 3rd respondent-Mutt.

                                         2                                    RRR,J.
                                                                 W.P.No.25157/2017

2. Thereafter, the petitioner sought to purchase the land, by

way of private negotiations, and the Assistant Commissioner, who is the

in-charge of the Mutt, by letter in Roc.No.226/1982-A, dated 25.03.1982

had recommended the case of the petitioner to the Commissioner,

Endowment Department for purchase of the land at the rate of

Rs.15,000/- per acre. After due consideration, the Commissioner

Endowments, had issued proceedings in Roc.No.M2-24149/82, dated

04.05.1982 granting approval for purchase of the land under Section

74(1) of the 1966 Act. The notice under this provision was also published

in the A.P. Gazette and in Andhra Prabha Daily News Paper on

08.06.1982. Thereafter, the property was sold to the petitioner under

private negotiations in accordance with the stipulations in A.P.

G.O.Rt.No.1427 Revenue (Endowments-III) Department dated

24.08.1982, and the proceedings of the Commissioner in

Roc.No.M2/24149/82 dated 09.09.1982 and the orders of the erstwhile

High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 14.10.1982 in W.P.M.P.No.10901 of

1982 in W.P.No.3621 of 1982 apart from the proceedings of the Assistant

Commissioner in-charge of the 3rd respondent-Mutt dated 25.10.1982. All

these proceedings had then culminated in execution and registration of a

deed of sale dated 29.10.1982 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Chittoor

as document No.7208/1982.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner and two others approached the

erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the

State of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.9903 of 2015 to declare the

proceedings of the 4th respondent including the property in the list under

the prohibitory register under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1980,

on the ground that these lands belong to the Mutt. This writ petition along 3 RRR,J.

W.P.No.25157/2017

with a batch of writ petitions was disposed of by a Division Bench of the

Hon‟ble High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State

of Andhra Pradesh by an order dated 29.01.2016 with the observation

that these issues were covered by the Full Bench judgment passed in

W.A.No.353 of 2015 and batch dated 23.12.2015. In accordance with the

directions passed in that judgment, the petitioner is said to have made a

representation to the Commissioner for NOC to be issued for the subject

land.

4. As the Commissioner, Endowments was not passing any

orders on the representation of the petitioner made in pursuance of the

directions in Writ Appeal No.353 of 2015, C.C.No.2337 of 2016 was filed.

At the same time, the 3rd respondent-Mutt filed O.A.No.394 of 2017 on

the file of the A.P. State Endowments Tribunal, Guntur on the ground that

the sale of property in favor of the petitioner in the year 1982 was based

on a false statement made by the petitioner and that the sale had been

carried out in collusion with the then Assistant Commissioner, Endowment

Department, who was in-charge of the Mutt.

5. The Commissioner had then issued Memo

No.M1/26631/2016 dated 03.04.2017 rejecting the request of the

petitioner for grant of NOC on account of the pendency of O.A.No.394 of

2017 before the Endowment Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the

petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

6. Dr. Majji Suri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that O.A.No.394 of 2017 was filed, before the Endowment

Tribunal, after the impugned order was passed on 03.04.2017. In the

circumstances, the 2nd respondent could not have deferred the issuance of

NOC till the disposal of an O.A which had not yet been filed by them. He 4 RRR,J.

W.P.No.25157/2017

submits that such a decision is clearly arbitrary and requires to be set

aside.

7. The 3rd respondent-Mutt, has now filed written instructions.

In the written instructions it is stated that the property in question

belongs to the 3rd respondent-Mutt and since the said land was sold in

collusion with the Assistant Commissioner, who was the in-charge of the

Mutt, and on the basis of the false statement by the petitioner that he was

a tenant of the property, the said sale deed has to be set aside and the

land would have to be reverted to the 3rd respondent-Mutt. In these

circumstances, the petitioner cannot be granted NOC.

Consideration of the Court:

8. The admitted fact in the present case is that Ac.8.42 cents

of land in Sy.Nos.396 and 435 of Kattamanchi Village, originally belonged

to the 3rd respondent-Mutt. Subsequently, this land was sold to the

petitioner in 1982 by way of a registered deed of sale. In 2017, the Mutt

filed an application before the Endowment Tribunal contending that the

sale made to the petitioner is invalid and requires to be set aside.

9. As the above lands had been included in the prohibitory list

under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the petitioner approached the

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.9903 of 2015

which was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh,

by way of a common order dated 29.01.2016. This order while

summarizing the directions of an earlier order of a Full Bench dated

23.12.2015 in writ appeal No.343 of 2015 and batch, had issued certain

directions. The effect of those directions would be that it would be open 5 RRR,J.

W.P.No.25157/2017

to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent for deletion of the

property of the petitioner from the prohibitory list maintained under

Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 provided the petitioner could

demonstrate that the relevant property is not covered under clauses (a) to

(e) of subsection (1) of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.

10. Section 22-A (1) reads as follows:-

"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 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 he 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, 6 RRR,J.

W.P.No.25157/2017

Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others which are likely to adversely affect those interests"

11. In the present case sub-clause (a) (b) (d) would not be

applicable in any manner. Sub-clause (e) speaks of registration of

documents pertaining to properties which the State Government by

notification may prohibit registration. No such notification is relied upon in

the present case and hence sub-clause (e) would not apply. This would

leave sub-clause (c). A reading of sub-clause (c) would show that the

prohibition from registration in relation to any document would apply if

the said document is in respect of immoveable property owned by

religious and charitable endowments governed by the provisions of Act

30/1987.

12. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the property

is not owned by the Mutt, as a registered deed of sale has been executed

in favour of the petitioner, in the year 1982. At this point of time, there is

only a claim made by the Mutt for cancellation of the deed of sale and the

same is pending before the Tribunal.

13. As the Mutt cannot claim to be the owner of the property at

this point of time, the prohibition of Section 22-A (1) (c) would also not

apply.

14. In the circumstances, the order of the Commissioner

Endowments Department deferring consideration of the application of the

petitioner for deletion of the property from the prohibitory list, cannot be

sustained. It is not as if the Mutt is without a remedy in such a situation

as the matter is already pending before the Endowment Tribunal.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd

respondent to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance 7 RRR,J.

W.P.No.25157/2017

with the provisions of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as set out in

the present judgment and pass orders expeditiously, and preferably within

a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall

be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

                                             ________________________
                                             R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

17th August, 2021
Js
                         8                         RRR,J.
                                      W.P.No.25157/2017




     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO




              W.P.No.25157 of 2017




                17th August, 2021
Js