T G Venkata Krishna vs The State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 3111 AP

    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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2001 (1) ALD 134 MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020

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

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

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

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

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

2011 (6) ALD 502

2012 (2) ALT 647

2015(4) ALT 1 MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020

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.

2011 (4) ALD 43

2010 (5) ALD 444

2011 (2) ALD 48

2007 (5) ALT 466 MSM,J wps_20541_2019 and 133_2020

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

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

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

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

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