Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Domalapati Sarala, vs The Government Of A.P. on 13 April, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.41454 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the list communicated by
the respondents No.4 including the land in an extent of Ac.3.14 cents out
of Ac.3.88 cents in Sy.No.111/3D and 111/3E of Angallu Village fields,
Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District as assigned land, even though, the
same was assigned under Ex-Servicemen Quota through D-Form Pattas,
dated 23.05.2005 and 04.11.2006 and the same is not prohibited from
alienation after expiry of ten years period from the date of assignment and
the consequential action of the respondent No.5 in refusing to entertain
the Sale Deed for registration stating that the same is included in the list
communicated by the respondent No.4 as arbitrary, illegal, without power
or authority, contrary to the well established legal principles and violative
of fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioners 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.3.14 cents out of Ac.3.88 cents in Sy.No.111/3D and
111/3E of Angallu Village fields, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District
by setting aside the prohibitory lands list communicated by the respondent
No,4 in so for as the land belong to the petitioners"
It is the case of the petitioners that an extent of Ac.2.50
cents in Sy.No.111/3D and Ac.1.33 cents in Sy.No.111/3E of
Angallu village fields, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District, was
assigned in favour of late Krishna Murthy Naidu under
Ex-servicemen quota by issuing D-Form patta on 23.05.2005 and
04.11.2006. Since the date of assignment, the subject land was in
the possession and enjoyment of late Krishna Murthy Naidu
without interference from any one much less the respondents. As
late Krishna Murthy Naidu became owner by virtue of the grant,
his name was mutated in the revenue records, pattadar passbooks
and title deed in his favour.
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
Late Krishna Murthy Naidu died issueless, but executed a
Will in favour of the petitioners and three others. The said property
was succeeded by the petitioners along with three others as
legatees under the Will and in possession and enjoyment of the
same since the date of death of late Krishna Murthy Naidu. The
name of the petitioners and others were mutated in the revenue
records, pattadar passbooks and title deed were issued in their
favour.
As per the policy decision taken by the State Government
and the Government Orders being issued by it from time to time,
more particularly, G.O.Ms.No.1117, Revenue (ASSGN-I)
Department, dated 11.11.1993, G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016,
the assignees of the land, assigned under Ex-Servicemen quota are
entitled to alienate the same in favour of third parties after expiry
of ten years period from the date of assignment as long as the
genuineness of the assignment is not in dispute. Further, it has
also been categorically stated in G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016
that the land assigned under Ex-Servicemen quota should be
deleted from the prohibited lands list under Section
22 -A of the Registration Act, 1908 and furnish the same to the
Registration Department in all the cases where there is no dispute
of genuineness of the assignment.
While the matter stood thus, the petitioners offered to sell
the land to an extent of Ac.3.14 cents out of Ac.3.88 cents in
Sy.No.111/3D and 111/3E of Angallu Village fields, Kurabalakota
Mandal, Chittoor District, in favour of the third parties for their
family necessities, but respondent No.5, on presentation of the
document, refused to receive the same for registration on the
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
ground that the subject land is classified as "assigned land" and
the same is prohibited for registration. As per G.O.Ms.No.1117,
dated 11.11.1993, the Ex-Serviceman who is given assignment is
entitled to sell the same after expiry of ten years period from the
date of assignment and as per G.0.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016
the land assigned under Ex-Servicemen quota should be deleted
from the prohibitory lands list and furnish the same to the
Registration Department in all the cases where there is no dispute
about the genuineness of the assignment. Therefore, the inclusion
of the subject land in the list communicated by the respondent
No.4 as an assigned land and the consequential action of the
respondent No.5 in refusing to entertain the Sale Deeds for
registration on the ground that the same is included in the list of
assigned lands communicated by the respondent No.4 is illegal and
arbitrary.
Respondent No.4 filed counter denying material allegations
while contending that the land in Sy.No.111, admeasuring an
extent of Ac.22.00 cents was originally classified as "Gayalu"
poramboke as per A-register of Angallu Village. Subsequently, the
said extent has been sub-divided as per proceedings
No.8A/5/1413, dated 29.12.2003 and 8A/7/1413 dated
02.01.2004 as per the entries available in A-Register, which are as
follows:
Sl.No. Sy.No. & Extent Classification/Name of the
Sub Divn. Pattadar if assigned
No.
1 111/1 0.30 Gutta
2 111/2 0.33 Gutta
3 111/3 3.98 Kosuri Tirumalakka
W/o Gangulappa
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
4 111/4 0.54 Gutta
5 111/5 0.42 Banda
6 111/6 2.35 Gramanatham
7 111/7A 2.30 Gramanatham
8 111/7B 2.30 Gollapinni Kamalamma
W/o Ramalinga Sharma
9 111/7C 1.20 Gramanatham
10 111/8 0.57 Gutta
11 111/9 0.47 Gutta
12 111/10 1.90 Boggala Mallaiah s/o Papaiah
13 111/11 1.46 Gutta
14 111/12 1.78 Boggala Mallaiah s/o Papaiah
15 111/13 3.53 Gramanatham (Chenetha
Nagar)
Total 22.00
As per the record, the land in Sy.No.111/3, admeasuring an
extent of Ac.3.98 cents in Angallu village, Kurabalakota Mandal,
was assigned to one Smt.Kosuri Thirumalakka W/o Gangulappa
vide A.M.No.215/4/1390, dated 27.07.1980 and after her demise,
the said land was divided into three shares and allotted to her legal
heirs i.e., her daughter and two sons namely Smt.B.Lakshmamma
W/o Pushapa Raju, Sri D.venkatramana S/o late Rayappa and Sri
D.Chinna Appalla S/o Late Rayappa as per the orders of the
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle in O.S.No.383 of 2001
dated 01.08.2005. Subsequently, Smt.B.lakshmamma has sold
away her share of Ac.1.33 cents in the said Sy.No.111/3 of Angallu
village to one Sri M.Krishna Murthy Naidu and the then Mandal
Revenue Officer, Kurabalakota had taken up the case under
Prohibition on Transefer (POT), issued Form I and II notices and
after due enquiry, has cancelled the A.M. patta for Ac.1.33 cents
out of Ac.3.98 cents in Sy.No.111/3 vide Roc.No.B/262/2004,
dated 23.10.2006 and assigned the same to Sri M.Krishna Murthy
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
Naidu S/o late Venkatappa Naidu as Sy.No.111/5, extent Ac.1.33
cents vide A.M.N0.67/4/1415, dated 04.11.2006. In addition to
this he was also granted another DKT patta for the land in
Sy.No.111/3, extent Ac.2.50 cents and Sy.No.569/9, extent
Ac.0.30 cents Angallu village, vide A.M.No.56/4/141 , dated
23.05.2005. As seen from the pattas granted in favour of
M.Krishna Murthy Naidu, it is clear that the pattas were granted
under normal Dharkasth Rules but not under Ex-Servicemen
quota, his application for grant of DKT patta was not forwarded by
the District Sainik Welfare Office, Chittoor through the District
Collector, Chittoor and found and moreover the above assignments
were made under normal Dharkasth Rules. Further the assignee
Sri M.Krishna Murthy Naidu, in his statement appended in the
assignment file has stated that he is ekingout his livelihood by
cultivation. Therefore, it is clearly found that the Daraksth granted
for the land in Sy.Nos.111/3, extent Ac.2.50 cents and
Sy.No.111/5, extent Ac.1.33 cents of Angallu village was granted
only under normal Dharkasth Rules, as detailed below.
Sl.No. Name of the Sy.No. Extent A.M.No. and date
Village
1. 111/3 2.50 56/4/1414 dated
2. 569/9 0.30 23.05.2005
Angallu
3 111/5 1.33 67/4/1415, dated
04.11.2006
It is further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue
(Assn.1) Department dated 04.07.2016 issuance of NOC to the
Ex-Servicemen, Freedom Fighters shall be dispensed with and
there shall be no need for obtaining NOC where a period of 10
years from the date of granting DKT patta is expired. But in the
instant case the land in Sy.Nos.111/3 and 111/5, but not 111/3D
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
and 111/3E as stated by the Writ Petitioners to an extent of
Ac.2.50 and Ac.1.33 cents in Angallu Village was granted DKT
pattas to one Sri M.Krishna Murthy Naidu under normal
Darakasth conditions vide A.M.Nos.56/4/1414, dated 23.05.2005
and 67/4/1415 dated 04.11.2006, but not under Ex-Servicemen
quota. Therefore the said G.O. is not applicable to the instant case
and as per the terms and conditions of the patta, the land in issue
is inalienable.
It is further contended that the patta granted in favour of the
original assignee is not under 'Ex-Servicemen quota' and it was
granted under „Normal Dharkasth Rules‟. On seeing the D-Form
patta issued to the original assignee, it is crystal clear that it was
issued under 'Normal Dharkasth Rules' with inalienable clause.
The word 'Ex-Servicemen' was incorporated subsequently with
different handwriting. In the event of grant of patta under
Ex-Servicemen quota, there will be clause that the land can be
alienated after a period of 10 years.
It is further contended that in view of the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in "Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary vs.
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad1",
parties aggrieved by inclusion of their properties in such lists may
apply for their deletion from the list or for modification thereof to
the concerned authorities as provided for in the guidelines who
shall pass appropriate orders within six weeks and communicate
the same to the concerned party. Apart from redressal mechanism,
aggrieved person can also approach the appropriate forum
including Civil Court for deletion of his property / land from the
2016 (1) ALT 550 (FB)
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
list of prohibited properties or for any appropriate relief. Without
availing such remedy, the writ petitioners have filed the present
Writ Petition. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and
the writ petitioners, alleged legatees under the Will allegedly
executed by late late Krishnamurthy Naidu are not entitled to
claim any relief, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners,
contended that when Late Krishna Murthy Naidu was granted DKT
patta, as mentioned in the patta itself, he is entitled to deal with
the property after expiry of 10 years from the date of grant as per
G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993. However, as per
G.O.Ms.No.279 dated 04.07.2016 the assignees are entitled to deal
with the property by sale or otherwise even without obtaining any
permission from the authorities after expiry of 10 years period and
direct the authorities concerned to delete the land assigned under
Ex-Servicemen quota from the prohibited properties list notified
under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. As such, when
the patta was granted in favour of Ex-serviceman, he is entitled to
alienate the property. Therefore, refusal to receive the document on
the ground that it is included in the prohibited properties list
under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 by the
respondents is illegal and arbitrary, requested to issue a direction
as sought for by the petitioners.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would
contend that patta was not granted under "Ex-servicemen quota",
but it was granted under "Dharkasth Rules". Though the
occupation of late Krishna Murthy Naidu was mentioned as
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
"Ex-Servicemen" within the brackets, the record maintained in the
office is the basis for such conclusion, but the patta was granted in
his favour as landless poor based on the statement of the late
Krishna Murthy Naidu available in the assignment register. Hence,
the alienation of the property in favour of third parties by executing
a Will is impermissible under law, but the property is heritable as
per the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the petitioners, who are
the legatees under the Will are only legal representatives not legal
heirs as per Hindu Succession Act. Consequently, they are not
entitled to claim any relief since no right will accrue to the
petitioners on account of issue of pattadar passbook and title
deeds in their favour, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Grant of assignment of land in an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in
Sy.No.111/3D and Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.569/9 of Angallu village
in favour of Late Krishna Murthy Naidu is not in dispute. Copy of
D.Form patta is placed on record. In the column provided for name
of the beneficiary in Patta AM No.56/4/1414, it is noted as
"M.Krishnamurthy Naidu (Ex-servicemen)." The D.Form patta was
granted subject to conditions as stipulated in the ordinary patta
issued under Dharkasth Rules. Similarly, another D-Form patta
vide AM.No.167/06 dated 06.11.2016 was issued assigning an
extent of Ac.1.33 cents in Sy.No.111/5 and 111/3E of Angallu
Village in favour of Late Krishnamurthy Naiduk is also placed on
record. In the said patta, the name of the beneficiary is mentioned
as "M.Krishnamurthy Naidu (Ex-Servicemen)", but the conditions
contained therein are only relating to patta issued in favour of
landless poor under Dharkasth Rules. Issue of pattadar passbooks
and title deeds mutating the name of M.Krishnamurthy Naidu is
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
also not in dispute. The only question before this Court is „whether
the patta was issued as per Dharkasth Rules or under the
Ex-servicemen quota?"
The documents produced by the petitioners along with the
writ petition more particularly D-form pattas would clinchingly
establish that the patta was granted in favour of M.Krishnamurthy
Naidu incorporating the conditions of grant under Dharkasth
Rules. The contention of the petitioners before this Court is that
the name of M.Krishnamurthy Naidu was mutated in the revenue
records, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in their
favour. Therefore, grant of patta is only under Ex-servicemen quota
but not as landless poor since the beneficiary M.Krishnamurthy
Naidu will never be landless poor within the definition of „landless
poor person‟ as defined under Section 2 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh
Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, which is as
follows:
2 (3) "landless poor person" means a person who owns an extent of
land not more than 1.011715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or
2.023430 hectares (five acres) of dry land or such other extent of land as
has been or may be specified by the Government in this behalf, from time
to time and who has no other means of livelihood"
No document is filed to establish that the name of the
deceased M.Krishnamurthy was mutated in the revenue records as
pattadar being Ex-serviceman.
There is specific provision for issue of patta in favour of
Ex-servicemen in Andhra Pradesh Revenue Board Standing Order
i.e. BSO-15 Para- 11(2). The conditions to be incorporated in the
patta granted in favour of Ex-servicemen are totally different from
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
the conditions to be imposed in the patta issued to the landless
poor. In the present case, D-Form patta granted in favour of
M.Krishnamurthy Naidu is in the nature of land assigned to the
landless poor as permitted in BSO 15.
Merely because mentioning of word „Ex-servicemen‟ within
brackets against the name of M.Krishnamurthy Naidu in the
column provided for name of beneficiary, it cannot be treated as
patta granted in favour of "Ex-servicemen". For issue of patta in
favour of „landless poor‟, conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.743
dated 30.04.1963 as pleaded in paragraph No.7 of the counter are
to be fulfilled. First condition is that he must be native of Andhra
Pradesh, serving in the defence forces of India, will, after
demobilization, be eligible for the assignment of land in their own
village. In case of death of Jawan after demobilization and before
grant of land, his family will also be entitled to the grant of land.
Here, family means wife, son, unmarried daughter and widowed
mother in that order of preference, if there is more than one son or
unmarried daughter, the eldest will get preference. The Jawans
who are demised or discharged from service due to inefficiency or
misconduct or whose character is assessed as bad on
demobilization are not eligible for grant of land.
Even otherwise, as per B.S.O.15(11)(2)(ii), all Jawans
domiciled in Andhra Pradesh and serving in the defence forces of
India, will after demobilisation be eligible for the assignment of
lands in their own villages or elsewhere. However, as per
B.S.O.15(11)(2)(ii)(g), applications for assignment of lands from the
soldiers serving in the army shall be considered in case their
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
families volunteer to take up cultivation on their behalf, subject to
the condition that if a jawan who has been allotted land is not
demobilised in the normal course but has been dismissed or court-
martialled, the land assigned to such person would revert to the
Government.
A perusal of D-form pattas granted in favour of
M.Krishnamurthy, it is clear that they were only pattas granted as
landless poor based on proforma of patta, but not patta under
Ex-servicemen quota as his application was not forwarded by the
District Sainik Welfare Office, Chittoor to the Revenue Department.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the pattas were
issued under Ex-servicemen quota by mentioning his designation
against his name as "Ex-servicemen" is hereby rejected as it is not
sufficient to conclude that the patta was issued under
"Ex-servicemen quota". The petitioners being the legatees under
the Will diverting the general rules of succession, are not entitled
to claim any right in the property.
Will, even though a testamentary disposition, is not
permissible in the case of assigned land covered by the Act 9 of
1977 in favour of strangers to the family, a will can be executed by
the assignee under the Act 9 of 1977 only in favour of his family
members and not to strangers (Vide: Katta Yesuratnam v.
Commissioner, Land Revenue, A.P.2)
In view of the law declared by this Court in the judgment
(referred supra), the claim of the petitioners is hereby rejected.
1993 (1) ALT 200
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
As seen from the material on record, the prohibited
properties list was issued by respondent No.4, Tahsildar. But the
Tahsildar is incompetent to communicate the list of the prohibited
properties, at best, he is entitled to communicate the list to the
District Collector, who in turn issue such proceedings in view of
the plain language used in Section 22-A of the Registration Act,
1908.
As per the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the
petitioners, the said property was not notified as prohibitory
property under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
In this connection, it is necessary to peruse the guidelines
issued by the State Government, to which my attention was drawn
during the course of hearing by learned counsel for the parties.
The State Government issued certain guidelines vide Circular
Memo No. G1/19131/05, dt. 14-09-2007 to all concerned to be
followed while exercising powers under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-
section (1) of Section 22 of the Registration Act, in particular (for
short the guidelines). The guidelines read thus:
"Section 22-A Certain guidelines
[Circular Memo No. G1/19131/05, dt. 14-09-2007]
Sub: Registration and Stamps Department - Registration (A.P.
Amendment) Act 2007 - Act No. 19 of 2007 relating to Section 22-A
Certain Guidelines issued Regarding.
The Government have notified through G.O. Ms. No. 863 Revenue
(Reg.I) Department, dt. 20.06.2007 bringing the Registration (A.P.
Amendment) Act 2007 into force from 20.06.2007. The amendment relates
to Section 22-A which prohibits registration of certain documents. In
pursuance of the Government notification of the Act No. 19 of 2007, the
following guidelines and directions are issued to all concerned to
implement the provisions of the Act:
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
(1) S.22-A(1)(a):2 For the purposes of Section 22-A(1)(a) all the District
Collectors shall furnish lists of properties prohibited under the statutes to
the Registering Officers having jurisdiction over such property and also the
District Registrar, Deputy Inspector General (R & S) concerned and to
Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in the
proforma appended in Annexure I under proper acknowledgment.
Subsequent additions, if any also shall be sent in the same manner. The
list must be signed by Collector/Joint Collector of the district.
Any deletions or modifications to these lists should be sent to
Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, who in
turn will furnish the same to the concerned Registering Officers having
jurisdiction over such property, for necessary action.
(2) S.22-A(1)(b): For the purposes of Section 22-A(1)(b), the District
Collectors shall furnish the lists of immovable properties owned by the
State or Central Government as the case may be to the Registering Officers
having jurisdiction over such property and also the District Registrar,
Deputy Inspector General (R & S) concerned and Commissioner &
Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in the proforma appended in
Annexure II. The list must be signed by the concerned authorised
representative of Central/State Government as the case may be.
All authorization for presentation and execution of documents
executed by the persons statutorily empowered to do so shall be
accompanied by Government orders issued by the concerned department/
Ministry of the State or Central Government along with signature of the
person so authorised to present or execute the documents duly attested by
the District Collector.
Any deletions or modifications to these lists should be sent to
Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, who in
turn will furnish the same to the concerned Registering Officers having
jurisdiction over such property, for necessary action.
(3) S.22-A(1)(c): For the purposes of Section 22-A(1)(c) the lists of
properties owned by religious and charitable endowments falling under the
purview of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987 or under the Wakf Act, 1985 to the Registering
Officers having jurisdiction over such property and also the District
Registrar, Deputy Inspector General (R&S) concerned and Commissioner &
Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in the proforma appended in
Annexure-III. The list must be signed by Commissioner, Endowments or
Secretary, Wakf Board, as the case may be.
All authorizations by the persons statutorily empowered to alienate
these properties shall be accompanied by notification issued by the
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
concerned Administrative Department in Government and the signature
attested by the concerned Head of the Department.
Any deletions or modifications to these lists should be sent to
Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, who in
turn will furnish the same to the concerned Registering Officers having
jurisdiction over such property, for necessary action.
(4) S.22-A(1)(d) : for the purposes of Section 22-A(1)(d) lists of land
declared as surplus lands under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 or the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 shall be furnished by the Revenue authorities (Not
below the rank of RDO) and the Special Officer and Competent Authority
under ULC Act concerned as the case may be to the Registering Officer
having jurisdiction over such property and also to the District Registrar,
Deputy Inspector General and Commissioner & Inspector General of
Registration and Stamps in the proforma appended in Annexure IV.
Any deletions or modifications to these lists should be sent to
Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, who in
turn will furnish the same to the concerned Registering Officers having
jurisdiction over such property, for necessary action.
(5) All the Registering Officers and the District Registrars on receipt of
the intimations/notifications from the Authorised Officers as mentioned
above, under sub-sections (a) to (d) of Section 22-A(1) shall enter them in
the prohibited property registers maintained electronically and also
manually and confirm the fact of having made the entries to the
Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration within fifteen (15) days
from the date of receipt of the intimations/notifications.
(6) All the intimations or notifications forwarded by the Authorised
Officers, in this regard to the concerned Registering Officers/District
Registrars shall be filed in a separate new file book (It shall be a
PERMANENT REGISTER) titled as intimations/notifications of prohibited
properties under Section 22-A and also publish such details on web site
duly updating the information from time to time. The
deletions/modifications to these lists forwarded by the C&IG, shall also be
filed in the same file book in chronological order.
(7) RECONCILIATION: DIGs will be responsible for ensuring that
details available with Registering Officers are reconciled with Details
available with his/her and DR office once in a quarter (January, March,
June, Sept.). A periodical report will be sent to C&IG Office along with the
list in Jan. and June every year. The DIG, shall certify that all the entries
are made in prohibited registers maintained by the officers electronically
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
and manually and no document was registered during this period affecting
the prohibited properties.
(8) Registration done between 1.4.99 and 20.6.07: All the registrations
completed between 1st April, 1999 up to the commencement of Act 19 of
2007 i.e., 20.06.2007, disregarding the prohibitions under Section 22-A
notifications, shall be invalidated by making Contra entries under the
concerned entry in Volume and Indexes, electronically, under intimation to
parties concerned by RPAD/AD. The Registering Officers shall immediately
refuse to register the documents which are kept pending during the above
period since the re-enacted Act has validated all the notifications issued by
the Government basing on the previous provisions of Section 22-A.
(9) Refusals: All refusals under Section 22-A(3) and invalidations
under Section 22-A(3/5) shall be entered in book 2 Volume, and an extract
of the entry shall be furnished to the person presenting the documents
after duly recording the reasons for the refusal or the invalidation in the
endorsements. The endorsements or refusal order should disclose the
details of intimation/notification through which the subject properties are
liable for refusal or registrations.
(10) For the classes of documents mentioned in clause (e) of Section
22-A(1) the State Government will notify the properties. Whenever such
notifications are issued by the Government, the Registering Officers shall
file them in the above prescribed file register and also make necessary
entries in the prohibition registers maintained by them electronically and
manually.
(emphasis supplied)
The guidelines, thus, provide the procedure for preparing
lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of
Section 22-A and as to who is supposed to forward such list and to
whom. Clauses (a) & (b) provide that it is the District Collectors
alone shall furnish lists of properties prohibited under the statutes
of immovable properties owned by the State and Central
Governments. It further provides that the list should be forwarded
to registering officers having jurisdiction over such property and
also to the District Registrar, Deputy Inspector General (R&S)
concerned and to the Commissioner and Inspector General of
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
Registration and Stamps in the proforma appended as Annexure I
and II to the guidelines under proper acknowledgment. Even
deletions and modifications to these lists also are required to be
sent to these authorities. These guidelines, in our opinion, need to
be followed scrupulously. In other words, lists of properties covered
under clauses (a) & (b) of Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act
shall be furnished only by the District Collectors to the
aforementioned authorities under the Registration Act. The
concerned registering officer, Registrar or Sub-Registrar as the
case may be, shall act on the lists of properties covered by clauses
(a) & (b) only and only when the list is forwarded to them by the
District Collectors. Thus, the question of forwarding of lists of
properties covered by clauses (a) & (b) by the officers of different
departments to the registering authorities directly does not arise
and if the registering officers receive any lists directly from different
departments, officers of the Government (other than the District
Collectors), he is not expected to look into such lists and act upon
them. The officers of different departments should forward their list
to the District Collector, who in turn is expected to examine the list
and after having satisfied of its correctness may forward it further
to the aforementioned authorities. In short, the District Collector is
not expected to act as postmen. If list of prohibited property is
received by the registering officer directly, the registering officers at
the most can return such lists to the concerned department
requesting them to forward it through the concerned District
Collectors, who, under the Guidelines, are enjoined with the duty
of furnishing the lists to the authorities mentioned above in the
office of Registration and Stamps.
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 is as
follows:
22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain documents.-
(1)The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from
registration, namely:
(a) documents relating to transfer of immoveable property, the
alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the State
or Central Government;
(b) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale,
agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of immoveable
property owned by the State or Central Government, executed by persons
other than those statutorily empowered to do so;
(c) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale,
agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten) 10 years in
respect of immoveable property, owned by Religious and Charitable
Endowments falling under the purview of the Telangana Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or by Wakfs
falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995 executed by persons other than those
statutorily empowered to do so;
(d) agricultural or urban lands declared as surplus under the
Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 or
the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976;
(e) 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.
(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.
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering
officer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issued
under clause (e) of sub-section (1).
(4) The State Government either suo motu or on an application by any
person or for giving effect to the final orders of the High Court of Telangana
or Supreme Court of India may proceed to de-notify, either in full or in
part, the notification issued under sub-section (2).
Hence, communication sent by Tahsildar including the
property in the prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A of the
Registration Act, 1908 to respondent No.5 is illegal, arbitrary and
without authority as per law and without jurisdiction. Therefore,
communication sent by Tahsildar under Section 22-A of the
Registration Act, 1908 by respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 is in
violation of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Thereby, the
communication of prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A of
the Registration Act, 1908 by respondent No.4 to respondent No.5
is declared as illegal and when it is declared as illegal, respondent
No.5 is bound to receive and register the document in case no
prohibited properties list was communicated by the competent
officer i.e. District Collector in terms of Section 22-A of the
Registration Act.
In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that the list
communicated by respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 is illegal
and without jurisdiction and the same is hereby declared as
violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of
India. Consequently, respondent No.5 is directed to receive and
register the document in the absence of any prohibition imposed
on registration of document by competent authority under the
provisions of the Registration Act.
MSM,J
WP_41454_2017
In the result, the writ petition is allowed declaring the list
communicated by the respondents No.4 including the land in an
extent of Ac.3.14 cents out of Ac.3.88 cents in Sy.No.111/3D and
111/3E of Angallu Village fields, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor
District as assigned land, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of
fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioners under Articles 14, 19,
21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently
respondent No.5 is directed to receive and register the Sale Deed
for the land in an extent of Ac.3.14 cents out of Ac.3.88 cents in
Sy.No.111/3D and 111/3E of Angallu Village fields, Kurabalakota
Mandal, Chittoor District if it is otherwise in accordance with the
provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Indian Registration
Act, 1908. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand
closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
13.04.2022
Ksp
