Constitution Of India vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 3715 AP

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                   WRIT PETITON NO.5984 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

"....to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent vide D.Dis. E5/1869/2020, dated 07.01.2021 in rejecting the deletion of petitioner's land admeasuring with an extent of Ac.6.18 cents comprised in Survey No. 1560 of Chennur Bit II village, Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District from the list of prohibited lands maintained under section 22-A of Indian Registration Act, 1908, despite judgment rendered in petitioner favour in suit in O.S.No. 80 of 2006 on the file of court of I Additional District and Session Judge, Nellore as illegal, irregular and unconstitutional and violative of provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and the rules framed there under and offends articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to de-notify the petitioner land admeasuring with an extent of Ac.6.18 cents, comprised in Survey No. 1560 of Chennur Bit II village, Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District from the list of prohibited lands maintained under section 22-A of Indian Registration Act 1908 and pass such other orders."

The claim of the petitioner is that he is possessor of the land

in Sy.No. 1561 to an extent of Ac. 1.48 cents, Sy.No. 1559 to an

extent of Ac. 1.93 cents, Sy.No.1560 to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents,

Sy.No.1564/A to an extent of Ac. 0.97 cents, Sy.No. 1564/B to an

extent of Ac. 0.28 cents, Sy.No. 1564/C1 to an extent of Ac. 0.22

cents, Sy.No. 1565/C to an extent of Ac. 0.57 cents, total extent

Ac. 11.63 cents, having purchased the same under an Agreement

of Sale Deed dated 01.10.2005 from one Doddi Sridhar Reddy.

When he failed to register the sale deed within stipulated time, the

petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No. 80 of 2006 on the file of I

Additional District Judge, Nellore against the Doddi Sridhar Reddy

seeking relief of specific performance of contract and the said suit

was decreed on 14.09.2009, directing the said Doddi Sridhar

Reddy to execute sale deed within time frame and no appeal is

preferred, hence the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.80 of 2006

has became final. Subsequently the petitioner filed E.P.No.49 of

2010 for execution of sale deed. After allowing the E.P, the court

has executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner vide Document

No.5255 of 2011, dated 20.08.2011, after paying requisite stamp

duty.

While the matter stood thus, the petitioner made an

application for mutation of his name in revenue records in the year

2016. Later he came to know that the subject land is kept under

the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration

Act and that he made an application for de-notification of the said

entries dated 17.12.2019. Accordingly, the 4th respondent

recommended to de-notify the land Sy.No.1560 to an extent of Ac.

6.18 cents as per proceedings in Rc.B.No.16/2020, dated

18.02.2020 as it is a patta land and as far as other extents of the

property in dispute are concerned it is stated that it was notified as

'dotted land' in the revenue records. Eventually District Level

Committee headed by the 2nd respondent vide D.Dis.No.E5/1869/

2020, dated 07.01.2021 extracted the report and recommendations

of the respondents 3 and 4 and erroneously came to conclusion

that as per the prohibited property list the Sy.No. 1560 to an

extent of Ac. 6.18 cents was prohibited by the "District Judge,

Nellore in O.S.No. 80 of 2006, dated 14.09.2009, but not by the 2nd

respondent" and rejected the request for deletion of entry

maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, which is

illegal and arbitrary. Hence the in action of the respondent is

questioned in this writ petition and requested to issue direction as

states supra.

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated

the contentions urged in the writ petition and drawn attention of

this court about the order passed by the 2nd respondent in

D.Dis.No.E5/1869/2020, dated 07.01.2021 and findings recorded

therein and contend that the said order is erroneous. On the face

of it, the I Additional District Judge, Nellore, did not prohibit

alienation of the land in dispute, except granting a relief sought by

the petitioner by a decree and judgment in the suit itself. Thereby

the impugned order is illegal and requested to set aside the same.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

contended that in view of the order passed by the District Judge,

the request of this petitioner for deletion of the land from the

prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act

for the land in Sy.No. 1560 to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents was

rejected rightly and requested to pass appropriate orders.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner filed a suit in

O.S.No. 80 of 2006 for specific performance of agreement of sale

against Doddi Sridhar Reddy, who failed to execute the Registered

Sale Deed as per decree and Judgment of the I Additional District

Judge, Nellore, dated 14.09.2009. The petitioner placed the decree

and judgment in O.S.No.80 of 2006 and also additional material on

record.

As per decree and judgment the said Doddi Sridhar Reddy

has to execute the registered sale deed in favour of this petitioner

by receiving balance of sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- within

three months. In the event of failure to perform the specific

direction by said Doddi Sridhar Reddy to execute sale deed, the

petitioner is entitled to obtain sale deed through process of court

and further directed the petitioner to deposit the balance of sale

consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- into court to the credit of suit

within a period of one week from the date of decree and judgment.

Pursuant to the decree and judgment in O.S.No. 80 of 2006

the petitioner deposited the balance of sale consideration into

court and sale deed was executed by the court subject to deposit of

stamp duty and registration, but it was not registered.

Thereupon the petitioner made an application through Mee-

Seva dated 17.12.2019 for deletion of the land from the prohibited

property list in Sy.No. 1560 and other survey numbers from the

dotted lands register etc., But the order passed in RCB.16/2020,

dated 18.02.2020 to the 2nd respondent/ District Collector and

recommendations for deletion of the land to an extent of Ac. 6.18

cents situated in Sy.No. 1560 of Chennuru Village, Guduru

Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. But the District Level Committee

passed an order by rejecting the request of the petitioner to delete

the land to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents situated in Sy.No. 1560 of

Chennuru Village, on the ground that the I Additional District

Judge, Nellore prohibited registration of the document pertaining

to the said property.

As seen from the earlier paragraphs, the land in Sy.No. 1560

to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents is a private patta land and the

Tahsildar and Sub-Collector recommended for deletion of the land

from the prohibited property list, but the I Additional District

Judge, Nellore in O.S.No.80 of 2006 by its order dated 14.09.2019

prohibited registration for the said land. The District Level

Committed misinterpreted the said interim order passed by the

learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore. As the interim order is

only restraining alienation during pendency of the suit. When once

suit is disposed of, any interim order passed therein is

automatically merged with final decree and judgment. Hence,

question of any restraint order during pendency of the suit will not

come in the way of District Level Committee and it is only

temporary injunction during pendency of the suit. Therefore,

question of District Level Committee rejecting the claim of the

petitioner on the ground that the I Additional District Judge,

Nellore, prohibited the registration is nothing but misinterpretation

and committed an error in not deleting the land in Sy.No. 1560 to

an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents from the prohibited property list under

Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Hence the order of the District

Level Committee is illegal and arbitrary.

Therefore, the impugned order in D.Dis.No.E5/1869/2020,

dated 07.01.2021 passed by the District Level Committee in

rejecting the deletion of the land to an extent of Ac. 6.18 cents

situated in Sy.No. 1560 of Chennuru Village, Guduru Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District is hereby set aside, while directing the

District Level Committee to delete the land to an extent of Ac. 6.18

cents situated in Sy.No. 1560 of Chennuru Village, Guduru

Mandal, SPSR Nellore District from the prohibited property list

notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, within a period

of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at

the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No

costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 23-08-2021

KK

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITON NO.5984 of 2021

Date: 23-08-2021

KK