One Pathuri Anantha Ramaiah And ... vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 3714 AP

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                 WRIT PETITION NO.9686 OF 2021

ORDER:

One Pathuri Anantha Ramaiah and Korrapati Venkat Rao filed

this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

questioning the action of the fifth respondent in refusing to receive

and process the sale deed presented by this petitioners pertaining to

the property admeasuring 185.77 sq.yds situated in D.No.15-1C,

Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, and declare

the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice

and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India

and consequently direct the respondents to receive and process the

Sale Deed presented by the petitioners in respect of the above

property.

The facts of the case in nut-shell are that, originally, property

in an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in 15/1C and Ac.0-05 cents in 15/2C

was purchased by one Syed Adam in auction proceedings of the

Commissioner, Endowments Department vide R.C.No.M2/ 56940/

1990 dated 04.05.1992 from the Endowments Department.

Accordingly, the Executive Officer, Sri Veeranjaneya Swami Temple,

Vadavalli Village, Sattenapalli Town & Mandal, Guntur District

executed registered Sale Deed Document No.2079/1992 dated

10.06.1992 in favour of Syed Adam. One Nallabotu Ramamohan Rao

purchased the property from Syed Adam by way of registered Sale

Deed Document No.3179/1999 dated 31.07.1999 and the present

petitioners jointly purchased property admeasuring 185.77 sq.yds

situated in Sy.No.15-1C, Vaddavalli Village, Satttenapalli Mandal, MSM,J WP_9686_2021

Guntur District from Nallabotu Ramamohan Rao by way of

Registered Sale Deed Document No.1658/2009 dated 16.04.2009.

Thus, the petitioners became owners of property admeasuring

185.77 sq.yds situated in Sy.No.15-1C, Vaddavalli Village,

Satttenapalli Mandal, Guntur District by purchase from the original

owner - Nallabotu Ramamohan Rao.

An auction was conducted on 08.06.1992 and possession of

the property was also handed over in favour of the auction

purchasers. Hence, it is evident that the subject property is not an

Endowment property and it ceased to be endowment property on sale

of the property in the public auction by the sixth respondent after

obtaining permission from the Commissioner of Endowments and it

became purely a private property and not governed by the provisions

of Act 30 of 1987.

It is contended that, as the petitioners are suffering from old

age ailments and without any source of income, they intended to sell

the subject property to Sri Shaik Ahamed Shareef who is the resident

of Sattenapalli town and the petitioners entered into agreement of

sale and received Rs.5,00,000/- as advance. The petitioners

approached the fifth respondent - Sub-Registrar, Sattenapalli for

registration of sale deed being presented by them in the month of

February, 2021. But, it was informed by the officials of Sub-

Registrar's office that the subject property is falling in Sy.No.15/1C

and the same is included in the list of prohibited properties and

furnished a copy of the list of prohibited properties. On verification of

the same, the land in Sy.No.15/1C is included in the list of

prohibited properties.

MSM,J WP_9686_2021

It is specifically contended that, when the property is not an

Endowment property and the inclusion of petitioners property in the

list of prohibited properties is contrary to law. moreover, the

petitioners purchased the property after going through the title and

in fact the Endowments Department itself sold the property to the

petitioners vendor's vendor i.e. Syed Adam and others who

purchased the property in the public auction after following

necessary procedure prescribed under Act 30 of 1987, thereby, the

very inclusion of the property in the list of prohibited properties and

refusal to receive and process the Sale Deed presented by the

petitioners before the fifth respondent is illegal, arbitrary and the

same is liable to be set-aside.

Respondent No.5 - Sub-Registrar, Sattenapalli, Guntur

District filed independent counter affidavit, admitted that the second

respondent sent the list of Endowments properties on the

recommendation of the third respondent to the Registering Officer,

while narrating the procedure of registration and prohibition of

registration of certain documents under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court

in Vinjamuri Rajagopalachari v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and

letter of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada

vide letter Rc.No.M2/9577/2016 dated 08.06.2016 furnishing list of

prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act,

wherein, as per the said list, land in Sy.No.15/1C to an extent of

Ac.0-37 cents is classified as Endowment property that belongs to

Sri Veeranjaneyaswamy Temple.

2016 (1) ALT 550 MSM,J WP_9686_2021

Respondent No.5 submitted that, the land in question is

prohibited from registration under Section 22-A of the Registration

Act, 1908 and relied on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court

in W.A.No.343 of 2015 & batch dated 23.12.2015, wherein, it was

made clear that, if a relevant property/land finds place in the list of

properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of

Section 22-A, the aggrieved party may approach concerned authority

to delete his lands from the list.

Respondent No.5 being a registering authority, is bound by the

list furnished by the second respondent in terms of Section 22-A of

the Registration Act and thereby, refusal to receive and register the

document, transferring the property included in the list of prohibited

properties from registration is illegal and requested to dismiss the

writ petition.

Respondent No.6 - Executive Officer, Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy

Temple, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Town, filed separate counter

affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia, contending that, the

sixth respondent Temple is notified under Section 6-C of the

Endowments Act i.e. Act 30 of 1987 and it is under the

administrative control of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments

Department, Guntur. The Temple is the absolute owner of the landed

properties in total extent of Ac.9-00 cents in Sy.No.15 of Vaddavalli

Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District as per the approved

property Register under Section 25 of Endowments Act on

18.06.1956. As per the approved property Register of the temple,

approved vide R.Dis.No.A3/740/2003 dated 19.03.2003 under

Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987, the temple is the absolute owner of an MSM,J WP_9686_2021

extent of Ac.8-50 cents in Sy.No.15/1C of Vaddavalli Village,

Sattenapali Mandal, Guntur District, which was endowed to the

temple for the purpose of maintenance of the temple.

It is submitted that out of the said land an extent of Ac. 5-67

Cents was sold to APSRTC for establishment of Sattenapalli Bus

Station and an extent of Ac. 0-60 cents was sold for establishment of

Microwave Repeater Station to the Telecom Department as per orders

in Rc.No: M2/46139/84, Dated: 28-01-1985 and further an extent of

Ac. 0-50 cents was sold to Postal Department for establishment of

Sattenapalli Post Office Main Branch vide orders in Rc.No:

M2/56940/90-1, Dated: 21-02-2002 and further an extent of

Ac.1-00 Cents was sold in public auction of sale vide orders in

Rc.No: M2/56940/90, Dated 04-05-1992 and thus a total extent of

Ac. 7-77 cents was sold and accordingly the temple remained with

an extent of Ac.1-23 cents in the said Survey No:15/10 still remains

as Endowments land in the said Survey No: 15/1C. But the same

was not identified on ground.

It is submitted that 3rd respondent i.e., The Assistant

Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur submitted the

particulars of the landed property belongs to various Endowment

Institutions to the Sub-Registrar, Registration & Stamps

Department, Sattenapalli, Guntur District under Section 22 (A)(1)(C)

of Registration Act, 1908 to prohibit transfer of those properties by

execution of unregistered documents. In the said list an extent of

land of Ac.0-37 cents in Survey No. 15/1C of Vaddavalli Village,

Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District belongs Sri Veeranjaneya MSM,J WP_9686_2021

Swami Temple, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Town and Mandal,

Guntur District was also included in the said list.

It is submitted that no sub division took place as regards the

said land of Ac.0-37 Cents in Survey No. 15/1C of Vaddavalli Village,

Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District. Hence the entire land was

included in the said list of Prohibited properties. If the petitioners

purchased the property, it is for them to approach the Revenue

Authorities for Sub division of the said land and for Demarcation of

the land purchased by them by following due procedure for getting

preparation of the necessary documents like Sub Division survey

report, FMB etc., so as to demarcate and decide the said land of Ac.

1-00 cents from the total extent of the land and to mutate the

Revenue Records, but no such procedure is resorted to by the

respondents. Hence, entire property in Sy.No.15/1C of Vaddavalli

Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District is included in the list of

prohibited properties and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners

Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar would contend that, when once the

property is sold after obtaining necessary permission, in compliance

of the procedure prescribed under Section 80 of Act 30 of 1987, the

property ceased to be Endowment property and became private

property, thereby, inclusion of the property in the list of prohibited

properties is illegal and consequently, refusing to receive and register

the document presented for sale of the property by Respondent No.5

is a grave illegality and it is nothing but depriving these petitioners

from dealing with the property in violation of Articles 14 & 300-A of

the Constitution of India, thereby, inclusion of the property of these MSM,J WP_9686_2021

petitioners in the list of prohibited properties from registration under

Section 22-A of the Registration Act, be declared as illegal, while

directing the respondent to delete the property from the list of

prohibited properties and further direct the fifth respondent - Sub-

Registrar to receive and register the sale deed being presented by

these petitioners in accordance with law.

Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Endowments supported the action of the respondents, but fairly

stated that, the balance land of the temple could not be identified on

ground and the entire property was included in the list of prohibited

properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and the

petitioners are at liberty to take steps for sub-division of the property

purchased by him; on such sub-division, necessary steps will be

taken for sub-division of the property purchased by them and

requested to dismiss the writ petition.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and

Registration simply contended that, as the property is included in

the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the

Registration Act, the fifth respondent is justified in rejecting the

registration of the document and thereby, did commit no illegality

and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

In view of the factual matrix, as narrated above, there is no

dispute about the sale of Ac.1-00 cents of land in Sy.No.15/1C of

Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Town & Mandal, Guntur District in

the public auction vide proceedings of the Commissioner in Rc.No:

M2/56940/90, Dated 04-05-1992. However, the sixth respondent in MSM,J WP_9686_2021

Paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit, admitted that, the sixth

respondent sold land of an extent of Ac. 7-77 cents out of Ac.8-50

cents in Sy.No.15/1C of Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal.

One Syed Adam and others became highest bidders in the

auction held on 08.06.1992 and the Executive Officer of Sri

Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple executed registered sale deed in favour

of the highest bidders as stated above and delivered possession of

the property, who in turn sold the same to one Nallabotu

Ramamohan Rao, i.e. vendor of these petitioners, from whom these

petitioners purchased property admeasuring 185-77 sq.yds in

Sy.No.15/1C of Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal. When the

property belonging to the sixth respondent Temple is sold after

obtaining permission from the Commissioner, Endowments

Department in compliance of Section 80 of Act 30 of 1987, and the

Executive Officer of Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple executed

registered sale deed vide Document No.2079/1992 dated

10.06.1992. Later, several transactions took place, the property

ceased to be the endowments property and vested on the private

individual, on the date of execution of registration of the sale deed by

the then Executive Officer of the sixth respondent - Temple.

Therefore, the petitioners purchased the property in public auction

held by the sixth respondent with the permission obtained from the

second respondent, and execution of sale deed in favour of the

highest bidders is an admitted fact. When once the property is sold

and executed registered sale deed, the sixth respondent cannot claim

any right over the property since the purchaser became absolute

owner with absolute rights. Merely because, Ac.0-35 cents of land MSM,J WP_9686_2021

could not be identified on ground after conducting survey, the

property which was sold in the public auction within the boundaries

cannot be included in the list of prohibited properties of

Endowments under Section 22-A(1)(C) of the Registration Act, 1908.

The sale deed executed by the Executive Officer of the sixth

respondent Temple is for an extent of Ac.0-50 cents and the

proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments Department vide

Rc.No: M2/56940/90, Dated 04-05-1992 shows that land of an

extent of Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.15/1C was executed in favour of Sri

Gadde Sambaiah, s/o Venkatappaih and six others, who is the

highest bidder. The Executive Officer of the Trust Board of the

subject temple is directed to guard the sale deed registered in the

names of the highest bidders and to be executed at the expenses of

the purchaser after collecting the entire bid amount. The sale

proceeds should be invested in long term deposit in Syndicate Bank,

Sattenapalli Town in the joint account of the Executive Officer of the

subject temple and the Commissioner, Endowments Department and

should be entered in the register of investments. Thereafter, the

property delivered to the vendor's vendor of the petitioners and

delivery receipt is also placed on record to prove that the property

was delivered. Thus, the petitioners being the purchaser from

Nallabotu Ramamohana Rao became owner of the property

admeasuring 185-77 sq.yds and inclusion of this property in the list

of prohibited properties by the second respondent at the instance of

the third respondent prohibiting transfer of property is illegal,

arbitrary and violative of Articles 300-A of the Constitution of India, MSM,J WP_9686_2021

since the petitioners are deprived of their right to deal with the

property for their necessities.

The document dated 31.07.1999 executed by Syed Adam s/o

Syed Ahmed in favour of vendor of this petitioners i.e. Nallabotu

Ramamohan Rao for an extent of 186 sq.yds = 156.24 sq.mts of open

site is within the following four boundaries.

             East         : Pathway of 21.06 feet width
             South        : property sold to Kancheti Venkateshwar Rao
             West         : Government property
             North        : Property sold to Poonati Chandrasekhar Rao

When the property is identified on ground with boundaries and

survey numbers, question of again conducting sub-division for

identification of the property of these petitioners does not arise.

Hence, inclusion of the property in the list of prohibited properties by

Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration

Act on the ground that Ac.0-37 cents of land belonging to temple

could not be identified on ground is a serious illegality committed by

Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 at the instance of sixth respondent.

Therefore, the second respondent is directed to delete the property

from the list of prohibited properties communicated to the Sub-

Registrar in compliance of Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act

within four weeks from today and communicate the same to

Respondent No.5. On receipt of communication, the Respondent

No.4/District Registrar is directed to receive, process and register the

document presented for registration pertaining to the land in

Sy.No.15/1C, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur

District, subject to complying the legal formalities under Indian

Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act, 1908. In case, Respondent MSM,J WP_9686_2021

Nos. 2 & 3 did not delete the property from the list of prohibited

properties, communicated to Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 within one

month, Respondent No.5 is directed to register the document on its

presentation for sale of the property admeasuring 185-77 sq.yds

situated in Sy.No.15-1C, Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal,

Guntur District, notwithstanding the communication sent to the

registering authority by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under Section 22-

A(1)(c) of the Registration Act.

In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of

Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in inclusion of the petitioners property

admeasuring 185-77 sq.yds situated in Sy.No.15-1C, Vaddavalli

Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, in the list of prohibited

properties and refusing to receive and process the sale deed

presented by the petitioners is declared as illegal and arbitrary;

consequently directed delete the property from the list of prohibited

properties communicated to the Sub-Registrar in compliance of

Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act within four weeks from

today and communicate the same to Respondent No.5. On receipt of

communication, the Respondent No.5-Sub-Registrar is directed to

receive, process and register the document presented for registration

pertaining to the land in Sy.No.15/1C, Vaddavalli Village,

Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, subject to complying the legal

formalities under Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act,

1908. In case, Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 did not delete the property

from the list of prohibited properties, communicated to Respondent

Nos. 4 & 5 within one month, Respondent No.5 is directed to register

the document on its presentation for sale of the property

admeasuring 185-77 sq.yds situated in Sy.No.15-1C, Vaddavalli MSM,J WP_9686_2021

Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, notwithstanding the

communication sent to the registering authority by Respondent Nos.

2 & 3 under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,

shall also stand closed.

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:23.09.2021

SP