Reddappagari Nagendra Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1682 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                    WRIT PETITION NO.8626 OF 2022

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

"To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No 2 in including the land in an extent of Ac.5-41 Cents in Sy.No.747-2 of Maddirevula Village, Lakkireddypalli Mandal, Y.S.R District in the prohibitory lands list furnished under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 and consequential action of the respondent No.5 in refusing to entertain the sale deed for registration for the same stating that the same is included in the prohibitory lands list as Assigned Land as arbitrary illegal and quite contrary to the well established legal principles laid in the case of the Sub Registrar Srikalahasti Chittoor District vs K. Guraviah reported in 2009 2 ALD 250 apart from being violative of fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.5 to entertain the sale deed for registration for the land in an extent of Ac.5-41 Cents in Sy.No.747-2 of Maddirevula Village, Lakkireddypalli Mandal, Y.S.R District by setting aside the prohibitory lands list furnished by the respondent No 2 under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act 1908 in so for as it relates to the said extent of the land."

The brief facts of the case are that, land of an extent of

Ac.5-41 cents in Sy.No.747-2 of Maddirevula Village,

Lakkireddypalli Mandal, YSR District (subject land), had been

assigned in favour of K.M.Sivamma under land less poor category.

The original assignee of the subject land had availed loan by

mortgaging the subject land with the District Cooperative Central

Bank Limited, Kadapa for agricultural purposes and failed to repay

the loan. In consequence of non-payment of the loan availed by the

original assignee, the subject land was auctioned by the bank in

E.P.No.5093/93-94 dated 18.11.1996. In the said auction, father

of the petitioner purchased the subject land. Thereafter, the

Deputy Registrar-cum-Officer on Special Duty has confirmed the MSM,J WP.No.8630 of 2022

sale through proceedings dated 18.11.1996 and issued Certificate

of Sale on 12.12.1996 in Form No.10. Since the date of issue of

Certificate of Sale, the petitioner's father was in peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the same till his demise. After death

of petitioner's father on 26.08.2007, the same was devolved upon

the petitioner and other legal heirs. When the petitioner was

constrained to sell the subject land in favour of third parties and

presented the document for registration before the Joint Sub-

Registrar/Respondent No.5, Respondent No.5 refused to entertain

the sale deed for registration on the ground that the subject land is

assigned land and the same is included in the prohibited

properties list under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act,

1908. Hence, the action of respondents is questioned in the writ

petition.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the property was

purchased by his father in the auction conducted by Registrar of

Cooperative Societies and after his father's death, the petitioner

became owner of the property, placed reliance on judgment of

erstwhile High Court of A.P at Hyderabad in The Sub-Registrar v.

K. Guravaiah, S/o.Chalamaiah1. On the strength of the principle

laid down in the said judgment, he requested to issue direction as

stated above.

Whereas the learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Revenue contended that, the subject land is an assigned land and

included in the list of prohibited properties under

Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, thereby, the

2009 (2) ALD 250 MSM,J WP.No.8630 of 2022

respondents refused to entertain the sale deed and finally

requested to pass appropriate order.

It is an undisputed fact that petitioner's father became

owner of the property as the bid was knocked down in his favour in

the auction conducted by Registrar of Cooperative Societies, copy

of Form No.10 sale certificate issued to the petitioner's father is

placed on record to support his contention that he became

absolute owner of the subject property. Later, the petitioner and

other legal heirs succeeded the subject property. Petitioner also

obtained family member certificate. Therefore, purchase of property

by the father of this petitioner in the auction conducted by

Registrar of Cooperative Societies is established.

Originally the land was assigned to K.M. Sivamma and the

petitoner's father purchased the subject land through Certificate of

Sale dated 12.12.1996, this fact is not denied by the petitioner

also. In any view of the matter when land is mortgaged with

District Cooperative Central Bank, according to Section 3 (2) of A.P

Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short Act

IX of 1977), no landless poor person shall transfer any assigned

land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by

purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise. Clause 3

further says that any transfer made in contravention of the

provision of sub-section (1) of sub-section (2) or subsection (2-A)

shall be deemed to be null and void., Clause 4 says that The

Provisions of this section shall apply to any transaction of the

nature referred to in sub-section (2) in execution of a decree or

order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other MSM,J WP.No.8630 of 2022

authority. When the property was sold in execution of decree by

the Cooperative Society or Bank, the property is exempted from

application of provisions of Act IX of 1977. Therefore, sale of

assigned land by Registrar of Cooperative Societies is saved and

this view is fortified by Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of

A.P at Hyderabad in The Sub-Registrar v. K. Guravaiah,

S/o.Chalamaiah (referred supra), in para No.12 of the judgment

the Court discussed about validity of such sale and finally

concluded that when sale knocked down in favour of petitioner is

confirmed and sale deed has been executed by the concerned

Cooperative Bank, the sale is valid. When once the property was

mortgaged to the Cooperative Society, which is not prohibited, sold

in the auction for realization of debt due under the award, such

transaction is exempted from application of provisions of Act IX of

1977. Hence, I find that transfer of subject land in favour of

petitioner's father cannot be said to be in violation of provisions of

Act IX of 1977.

In fact it is not the case of respondents that sale is in

violation of provisions of Act IX of 1977, but they limited their

contention that it is assigned land. However, respondents cannot

dispossess the petitioner by their highhanded action, when the

petitioner succeeded the subject land from his father, who became

owner by virtue of purchase in the auction conducted by Registrar

of Cooperative Societies. Hence, I find that the action of

respondents in interfering, if true is illegal, but the learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue clearly stated, that the

respondents are not interfering with the subject land.

MSM,J WP.No.8630 of 2022

Recording the submission of learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Revenue, respondents are directed not to interfere with

peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner in respect of land

of an extent of Ac.5-41 cents in Sy.No.747-2 of Maddirevula

Village, Lakkireddypalli Mandal, YSR District

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

There shall be no costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any,

shall also stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:08.04.2022

SP