Smt. Gavarasani Srilatha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 170 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

            WRIT PETITION No. 18099 OF 2019

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:

"... to issue an appropriate order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to execute the registered document dt. 14-06-2007 transferring their right of ownership either by gift or sale in respect of their land of Ac 2.00 from out of the original holding of Ac 76.20 cents of land paper run as Kallu Konda in Survey No.318 of Adivaram village, Visakhapatnam (rural), Visakhapatnam District now included in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and or any part thereof and that is the mandatory duty of the respondent to register the said document presented by the petitioner for registration under provisions of the Registration Act 1908 and to return the register document to petitioner and pass such order or order deemed fit and proper in the petition."

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps

appearing for the respondents.

The case of the petitioner is that originally, the land to

an extent of Ac.76.20 cents situated in Sy.No.318 of

Adivivaram Village, was settled in the name of one Sanapala

Pedamadhavudu in the year 1971 vide Inam register dated

25.04.1826. Presently, the said lands were earmarked in

Adivivaram revenue records. The petitioner purchased

Ac.2.00 cents out of Ac.76.20 cents situated in Sy.No.318 of

Adivivaram Village, Visakhapatnam Mandal, from the legal

heirs of Sanapala Pedamadhavudu, who inherited the

property, vide Possessory agreement of sale-cum-General

power of attorney dated 14.06.2007 bearing Document

No.4663 of 2007. The ownership of the vendors of the

petitioner was declared in O.S.No.302 of 1929 on the file of

District Court, Visakhapatnam by judgment and decree dated

23.12.1931; the same was confirmed by judgment and decree

dated 31.01.2001 in A.S.No.13 of 1994. Since the date of her

purchase, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the subject property. However, when she

intended to alienate the same, the respondents refused to

register the same and are not entertaining any sale

transaction in respect of the property covered by the

possessory agreement of sale. Hence, the present writ

petition came to be filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

ancestors of the vendors of the petitioner were in possession

of the schedule land even before the Inams Abolition Act.

There is no ground to interfere with the registration of the

petitioner's property under Section 22-A of the Registration

Act, 1908 and Section 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned

Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The respondent

authorities ought to have found that the land to an extent of

Ac.76.20 cents situated in Sy.No.318 was held by the

ancestors of Sanaka family and they were in continuous

possession from the year 1908 itself. The 1st respondent has

no right to interfere with the title of the subject land, which is

part and parcel of Ac.76.20 cents. The copy of the

encumbrance statement obtained on 01.08.2019 also reflects

that the subject land was no longer held by any transaction

other than the petitioner.

Learned counsel further submits that, earlier, when the

registering authorities refused to register the document

presented by the members of Sanapala family, in respect of

land to an extent of Ac.76.20 cents in Sy.Nos.314, 315 and

318 of Adivivaram Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, on

the ground that the Government has issued a notification

under Section 22-A of the Registration Act which empowered

the Government to issue notifications preventing the

registration of documents in respect of the lands to be

mentioned therein was held to be ultra vires as the provision

was struck down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

State of Rajasthan Vs. Basanth Nahata [AIR 2005 SC 3401]

and directed the respondents therein to receive and process

the document presented by the petitioners therein and take

necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of the

Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act. Pursuant to the

said order of this Court, the vendors of the petitioner, who

also belong to Sanapala family, executed and registered the

Document No.4663 of 2007 in favour of the petitioner in

respect of land to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents from out of

Ac.76.20 cents situated in Sy.No.318. It was clearly

mentioned in the said document that it was executed in terms

of the G.O.Ms.No.733/88/Revenue/UC.1 dated 31.10.1988

and the orders dated 26.04.2007 in W.P.No.8844 of 2007. In

view of the above, the 2nd respondent ought not to have

refused to entertain the document sought to be presented by

the petitioner in respect of the land purchased by her through

the Document No.4633 of 2007 stating that the land situated

in Sy.No.318 is shown in the prohibited property list under

Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the

land to an extent of Ac.76.20 cents situated in Sy.No.318 of

Adivivaram Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal is shown in

the prohibited property list under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the

Registration Act and unless the same is deleted from the said

list, the registration of any document in respect of any part of

the said land would not be entertained.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel

and on perusal of the record, this Court found that though

the Document No.4663 of 2007 was registered in favour of the

petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.733/88/Revenue/UC.1

dated 31.10.1988 and the orders dated 26.04.2007 in

W.P.No.8844 of 2007, subsequently the entire land situated

in Sy.No.318 is shown in the prohibited property list.

Therefore, the petitioner in the considered opinion of this

Court has to approach the concerned authority for deletion of

the same from the prohibited property list, by way of

submitting representation along with documents in support

of her contention.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, giving

liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Collector for

deletion of the subject land from the prohibited property list

under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act. No order as

to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any

pending, shall stand closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

19th January, 2021 anr

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

Writ Petition No. 18099 of 2019

19-01-2021

anr