B. Siva Prasada Reddy, S/O. ... vs The District Collector, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9266 AP

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU


                   W.P.No.16169 of 2013
O R D E R:

The writ petition was initially filed by one Sri B.Siva

Prasad Reddy. He claims to have purchased the property in

an auction conducted by the District Cooperative Bank,

Anantapur.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri

M.Prasada Rao, the auction was held on 26.04.1996 and was

confirmed on 22.06.1996. The sale certificate was issued in

favour of the petitioner on 04.07.1996. Thereafter, Pattadar

Pass Books and Record of Rights Books were also issued in

favour of the petitioner after following due process. He

submits that when a sale deed was presented, there was an

objection to the registration of the documents. The Mandal

Revenue Officer gave a clarification on 08.08.2001 stating

that the petitioner purchased the property in an auction

conducted by the Cooperative Bank and therefore, the

petitioner has valid rights over the property. He also submits

that he had sold the property and registered the plots and the

subsequent purchasers were also impleaded as respondent

Nos.5 to 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon

the judgment in W.P.No.11236 of 2012 contends that even if

the land was originally assigned land, if the same was

mortgaged to a Co-operative Bank and is sold, it loses the

characteristic of assigned land and so the prohibition under

the Registration Act will not apply. Learned counsel relies

upon a Division Bench judgment reported in Sub-Registrar,

Srikalahasti, Chittoor District and another v.

K.Guravaiah and another1. He points out that this

judgment is also referred to in the judgment in W.P.No.11236

of 2012. Apart from this, he submits that respondent No.4

supposedly filed a revision petition questioning the order of

the Tahsildar for mutation of names etc., on 01.04.2002.

This revision petition is taken up by the Revenue Divisional

Officer and disposed of by orders dated 04.05.2013 which are

impugned in the writ petition. Learned counsel submits that

the revision petition is hopelessly barred by time and by this

date, the sale was already confirmed, certificate of sale was

issued and the pattadar passbook and record of rights were

2009 (2) ALD 250

also issued to the petitioner. It is stated that these facts are

noted in the impugned order, yet same was passed without

considering the law or the facts. No notice was also issued to

the writ petitioner before the impugned order was passed.

Therefore, the order is questioned.

The legal representatives of respondent No.4 contested

the matter and the learned counsel representing respondent

No.4 argues that there was no notice by the Bank before the

auction or recall of the original loan and that respondent No.4

was not put on notice before the property was brought to sale.

It is also submitted that before the mutation occurred and

entries were changed, notices were not given to respondent

No.4, as required. Therefore, on the ground of failure of rules

of natural justice and making the mutations contrary to the

Pattadar Passbooks Act, it is stated that the revision is filed.

Learned counsel also submits that similarly placed assignees

challenged the resumption and the High Court granted orders

in their favour. Basing on all of the above, revision was filed

by the 4th respondent and the order dated 04.05.2013 was

rightly passed as per him. He points out that the Revenue

Divisional Officer clearly held that proper procedure was not

followed for resumption of the land in April, 2002. Hence, he

justifies the order.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the official

respondent also argues in line with what is stated by the

learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and his legal

representatives.

This Court, after considering and giving anxious

consideration to the facts and the issues raised, notices that

there is a very sad state of affairs in this case. On 04.05.2013

the impugned order was passed basing on a representation

filed by the 4th respondent. In the course of the order, the

Revenue Divisional Officer notices that the property was

auctioned by the Co-operative Bank and that Sri B.Siva

Prasad Reddy-writ petitioner is the successful purchaser. He

applied for No Objection Certificate and the Mandal Revenue

Officer reported to the Sub-Registrar for conducting sale

registrations. Despite noticing that there is a sale in favour of

Sri B.Siva Prasad Reddy, the Revenue Divisional Officer

proceeded to allow the revision without giving the writ

petitioner an opportunity of hearing. By this date, the

certificate of sale was already issued in favour of the writ

petitioner in July, 1996. Thereafter, pattadar passbooks and

record of rights books were issued. Obviously, these were

issued after verifying the claim of Sri B.Siva Prasad Reddy, yet

an Officer of the very same Revenue Department proceeded to

allow the revision petition.

The order of the Division Bench in the case of

K.Guravaiah (1 supra) is dated 30.12.2008. In this Division

Bench judgment, it was clearly held that the assignees of land

can mortgage the same to a Bank for raising finance. If the

mortgage money was not repaid, the Bank can sell the

property to third parties. It was clearly held that such a

transaction in which land has been transferred or purchased

is valid and not contrary to the provisions of the Prohibition of

Transfer Act, 1977. It was also held that mortgage is not an

alienation which is prevented by the said Act. This fact was

also noticed by the learned single Judge in his order in

W.P.No.11236 of 2012. Yet even after the law was

categorically declared, the Revenue Divisional Officer

proceeded to allow the revision petition filed by respondent

No.4. An implead petition WP.MP.No.1122 of 2015 was filed

by the implied petitioners in the writ petition stating that they

have purchased the properties in 1997-98 from the writ

petitioner. As they also have interest in the property, said

application was allowed on 29.06.2017. These people are also

claiming right in the property pursuant to the sale deeds

executed in their favour.

These sale deeds are also of the year 1997-98. The

impugned order refers to the letter of the Mandal Revenue

Officer, wherein he states that once the assigned land is sold

in a public auction by a Cooperative Bank, the purchaser has

a right to sell the property. As mentioned earlier, this aspect

is also not considered.

This Court notices that while the grievance of

respondent No.4, which led to the impugned order being

passed is that he was not given a notice, the very same

mistake was committed in the case of writ petitioner before

passing the impugned order dated 04.05.2013. The Revenue

Divisional Officer did not issue notice to the writ petitioner

nor did he consider the facts or the law on the subject or the

effect of the sale through a public auction conducted by the

Cooperative Bank. He has also ignored the Division Bench

judgment in the case of K.Guravaiah (1 supra).

For all of the above reasons, this Court is of the opinion

that the impugned order has to be set aside and it is

accordingly set aside.

The opinions expressed in this writ petition are for the

purpose of disposing of this writ petition only. It is also made

clear that all the pleas and all the possible defences that can

be taken are also left open to all the parties.

The writ petition is therefore partially allowed setting

aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated

04.05.2013. The 2nd respondent is directed to issue fresh

notices in the revision filed by K.Chendrayudu-deceased 4th

respondent to all the parties including the subsequent

purchasers and conduct a de-novo enquiry. The parties are

given the option of filing their replies, objections, documents

etc., to the said revision.

The 2nd respondent shall consider all the legal and

factual submissions made and dispose of the revision on its

own merits by a reasoned order in accordance with law within

a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent can

dispose of the matter as per law without being influenced by

the fact that the writ petition has been disposed of by the high

Court. As there is a stay of dispossession, which is

continuing during the entire period the writ petition, the

possession of the petitioners shall be protected till the 2nd

respondent passes a reasoned order on the merits of the

matter. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous

petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date: 02.12.2022 KLP