Vetcha Subba Rao And 4 Others vs The State Of Ap., Rep By Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9460 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9460 AP
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Vetcha Subba Rao And 4 Others vs The State Of Ap., Rep By Its ... on 8 December, 2022

Bench: V.Sujatha

                   HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

                        WRIT PETITION No.20859 of 2015

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

"to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring action of the 2nd respondent in not accepting the documents for registration in respect of the house site admeasuring an extent of 164.67 Square Yards situated in D.No.4104 in R.S.No.141 of Bantumilli Village, Bantumilli Mandal, Krishna District, alleged ground that the said land was classified as Gramkantam as Government Land as illegal arbitrary ultravirus non application of mind contrary to the procedure established by law and in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to receive register and release the document to be presented by the petitioner or his nominee in respect of the above house site in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ...."

The petitioner's claim is that when the petitioner approached the

office of the 2nd respondent and sought for registration of the subject

property but the 2nd respondent refused to receive the same stating that he

is not going to receive and register the document as the subject land is

described as „Gramakantam Land‟. As such, the present Writ Petition is filed

directing the respondent-authorities to receive and register sale deed to be

presented by the petitioner.

Heard both the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned

Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the subject

property is only an Gramakantam Land and not Government land and also

referred the Judgment of this Court in Voonna Bangaraju Vs.Government

of Andhra Pradesh and others 1, wherein it was observed that:

„As evident from the Circular of the District Collector, Kadapa, and the Orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 22.02.2014, the lands classified as Gramakantham are not the Government lands and that there is no restrain for alienation of the said properties. Thus, the decision of the Sub-Registrar in refusing to entertain the deed of conveyance concerning the properties in Survey Nos. 159/2 and 162/2 of Salur Municipality, is erroneous.

Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar, Salur, to furnish market value concerning the properties situated in Survey Nos.159/2 and 162/2 of Salur Municipality and to receive the deeds of conveyance as and when the same are presented by the parties on the said lands and process the same in accordance with the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, without raising the objection that the land is classified as Government land. The Sub-Registrar shall complete the registration formalities, if the documents are in order and to release the same. If the Sub- Registrar has any other valid reason for not entertaining the documents, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the parties. There shall be no order as to costs‟.

At the time of hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Revenue submitted written instructions of Sub-Registrar, Bantumilli vide

letter No.C.No.66/2022 dated 07.12.2022, stating that if the document

presented with RS No.141 of Bantumilli village property can be admitted for

registration.

It is seen, of late, unfortunately similar types of complaints are

coming from the parties in the form of writ petitions saying that

concerned Sub Registrar has flatly refused to entertain the document,

leaving aside scrutinizing the same and writing a speaking order of

refusal. This is a flagrant violation of the duty caste on a Sub

Registrar.

.2014(3) ALD 443

Section 71 of Registration Act, 1908, reads thus:

"71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded:

(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2, and endorse the words "registration refused" on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.

(2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered.

Thus, law is clear to the effect that if a Sub Registrar proposes to

refuse to register the document presented, he has to endorse the

reasons for his refusal and enter the same in Book No.2 and endorse

the words 'Registration Refused' and furnish a copy of his order to the

concerned party. That being so, a Sub Registrar can refuse to register

the document, only after he entertains the document i.e., receives the

document presented by a party. He cannot refuse to entertain the

document altogether, which would amount to total abdication of the

assigned duty and lead to misconduct.

In these circumstances and having regard to the facts and law,

this writ petition is allowed directing the petitioner to present the

document before the respondents within one week, in which case, the