M/S. Manda Venkata Ratnam And Co., vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 8403 AP

                THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

         WRIT PETITION Nos.4402 of 2021 and 4927 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:

W.P.No.4402 of 2021:

      This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India questioning the acts, deeds, things of the respondents in

including and continuing the petitioner's property ACC Godown

appurtenant site an extent of 1230sq.yards D.No.5-27 situated in

R.S.No.440/2 of Lankalakoderu Village of Palakol Mandal, West

Godavari District in the prohibitory properties list under 22-A(1)(b) of

the Registration Act 1908 shown as a Tank by rejecting the petitioner

claim by way of endorsement dated 02.6.2018 by the 3rd respondent is

illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to delete the

petitioner's subject property from the prohibitory list.

W.P.No.4927 of 2021:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India questioning the acts, deeds, things of the respondents in

including and continuing the petitioner's property i.e. Sri Jayalakshmi

Mookambika Rice Mill and appurtenant site, D.No.5-19 to 5-24 to an

extent of Ac.1.06cents in R.S.No.440/1 and R.S.No.440/2 of

Lankalakoderu Village of Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District in

the prohibitory properties list under 22-A(1)(b) of the Registration Act

1908 shown as a Tank by rejecting the petitioner claim by way of

endorsement no.E1/e-1340930/2018 dated 02.6.2018 by the 3rd

respondent is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the

respondents to delete the petitioner's subject property from the

prohibitory list.

3. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the

same, both the writ petitions are being disposed of with a common

order by taking the W.P.No.4927 of 2021 as a leading case.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases and

learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally

the subject property belongs to the then Raja of Mogaltur and their

possession and enjoyment. A decree was passed against them in

O.s.No.23/1913 on the file of Eluru Sub-Court. In the execution of

the above said decree the plaintiffs Alluri Raghunadharaju filed

O.S.No.300/1929 on the file of the District Munisif of Narsapuram.

Participated in the Court auction for un-divided half share of senior

Raja of Mogaltur. Said Alluri Raghunadharaju knock down the bid for

an amount of Rs.1025/- on 25.3.1920. He took the delivery thorugh

Court on 19.5.1920. The remaining half share was purchased from

junior Raja of Mogaltur by Akula Adinarayana and others and effected

partition, in that Alluri Raghunadharaju have been in possession and

enjoyment through his tenants. Thereafter the next generation of the

predecessors of the title of the property filed a suit O.S.No.259/1976

on the file of II Additional District Munisif of Narsapuram by Akula

Narayana Rao vs. Zilla Parishad of Eluru, Panchayat Smiti of

Ponduru, Gramapanchayat of Lankala Koderu seeking permanent

injunction against defendants therein for the subject land. Said suit

was decreed in favour of plaintiff on 13.7.1982. Subsequently, the

said property was acquired by one Penumatsa Subbaraju and the said

Subbaraju executed a deed dated 21.3.1966 vide document

no.719/1966 in favour of Lankalakoderu Co-operative Rural Bank

limited. Thereafter said bank constructed a rice mill in the said

property for milling purpose to provide access to the members of the

said society for supplying the paddy. Said bank sustained loss and to

discharge its liabilities, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the

District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru and the Joint

Registrar/Co-operative Registrar, West Godavari District after

prolonged internal correspondence constituted a committee for

disposal of the property belongs to the said bank. As per the minutes

of the West Godavari District Level Committee meeting dt.18.02.1995,

06.12.1995 and 02.4.1996 tenders were invited for auction of the

property situated in the above said property i.e. rice mill as item no.1

and 2 and godown. Tenders were initiated for auction of the said

property. Pursuant to the auction notification, the petitioners have

participated and stood as highest price of Rs.15,00,000/- for the

properties in the schedule-I. The District Collector cum Chairman

District Level Committee of West Godavari District at Eluru confirmed

the auction in favour of the petitioner firm vide proceedings

no.ROC(COOPN)No.2555/92-A Dt.02.4.1996 for the rice mill in favour

of the petitioner firm.

6. Basing on the above said proceedings, the Lankalakoderu co-

operative Rural Bank Limited, Lankalakoderu represented by the

President executed a registered sale deed dated 18.5.1996 after

receiving the entire sale consideration vide document no.1983/1996

on 06.6.1996. As per the said document, the property i.e. rice mill

and appurtenant site Door No.5-19 to 5-24 to an extent of

Ac.1.06cents in R.S.No.440/1 and R.S.No.440/2 of Lankalakoderu

Villlage of Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District. The above said

deed was executed in favour of the petitioner at the instance of the

District Collector -cum- Chairman called for tenders for auction of the

subject property and after verification, the petitioner has participated

pursuant to the auction notification issued and the petitioner stood as

highest bidder. Basing on the same, the respondents have registered

the said property in favour of the petitioner through document

no.1983/1996

7. Recently it came to the notice of the petitioner about the above

said properties are placed under prohibitory list i.e. under Section 22-

A of Registration Act 1908 on the ground that the properties are tank

margin properties as per RSR classification. Knowing about the same,

the petitioner has submitted an application for deletion of subject

properties from Section 22-A list and the same was considered and

rejected by the District Collector in its proceedings dated 02.6.2018.

Assailing the same the present writ petition is filed.

8. After notice, the respondents have filed their counter. Though

they have not denied about the acquisition of properties by the

petitioner through registered document, but it is averred that an

extent of Ac.22.73cents in R.S.No.440/1 and an extent of

Ac.12.99cents in R.S.No.440/2 of Lankalakoderu Village of Palakol

Mandal of West Godavari District was classified as tank and tank

margin porambokes respectively as per original revenue record i.e.

RSR of Lankalakoderu village of Palakol Mandal as per the re-survey

operations made in the year 1932. That the said land is objectionable

as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.4787/2001,

dated 25.7.2007 and this Court in W.P.No.9250 of 2001 dated

14.3.2002. Except stating that the said properties are classified as

tank margin poramboke no other reasons have mentioned for denial or

rejection of the properties for deletion under Section 22-A list.

9. The petitioner has filed reply to the counter by stating that the

respondent nos.3 to 5 have not denied the purchase of the subject

property in the auction conducted by the State Instrumentalities and

their men on 31.5.2008 and also after receipt of the entire sale

consideration, the District Committee headed by the District Collector

has confirmed the same in favour of the petitioner and basing on the

said confirmation, the Co-operative Department has executed a

registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Except stating in the

counter that the land which was classified as tank margin poramboke

in RSR, the respondents haven not made any other allegations against

the petitioner. In fact the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

C.A.No.4787/2001 dated 25.7.2001 referred in the counter is not

applicable to the present case. Even the Full Bench of this court in

Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and Others vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh1 has categorically held that the applications of the claimants

has to be considered with the letter and spirit under Section 22-A of

Indian Registration Act and then only they have to take decision. But

2016(1) ALT 550 (F.B)

in the instant case, the 3rd respondent simply rejected the request

made by the petitioner only on presumptions and assumptions.

10. Further stated that repeatedly stating that the subject land is

classified as tank margin poramboke does not mean really the tank

margin is existence on the ground or not. The State Government is

empowered either suo-motu on application against inclusion of any

property in the prohibitory list u/Sec.22-A of the Registration Act and

it is also empowered to de-notify either in full or in part notification

issued under sub-section 2.

11. Basing on the above pleadings, learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner has contended that when there is no

dispute with regard to the title of the petitioner and also when there is

no denial with regard to the averments made in the writ petition only

basing on the classification made in RSR register, the respondents

ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner through

impugned order.

12. Further learned senior counsel submitted that even according to

the RSR the subject properties are not tank poramboke. It is only a

tank margin poramboke. There is a distinction between tank

poramboke and tank margin poramboke. Even the Hon'ble Apex

Court has categorically held that water bodies cannot be disturbed.

But in this case, it is only a classification between tank poramboke

and tank margin poramboke. Without considering the said distinction

and without applying the mind, the respondents have simply rejected

the case of the petitioner.

13. Learned senior counsel further submitted that when the

respondents themselves more particularly the District Collector

headed by the Committee after scrutiny of the documents has placed

the subject properties for auction and accordingly, they have issued

three auction items and being the highest bidder have negotiations

and also have confirmed the auction by the District Collector as head

of the District Level Committee and after receipt of the entire sale

consideration by registering the properties in favour of the petitioner

by the State instrumentalities, now they cannot entitle to take 'U' turn

and notify the subject properties under Section 22-A list only on the

ground that the said properties were classified as tank margin

poramboke.

14. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in an identical

issue came up before this Court has decided by the Hon'ble Composite

High Court in between Shaik Dudekula Pyari Jan @ Lal Bi and

others vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli2 wherein

this Court has held that except for stating that entries in the Village

W.P.No.6016 of 2010

Account RSR of Doddipalli Village indicate the lands in Sy.No.1969/2,

1972, 1969/1B and 1971 as Government lands, there is no other

basis for the revenue authorities to take a claim over the lands. To the

contrary, the evidence on record, being registered transactions dating

back to 1942, 1938, 1959 and 1972 as the case may be, clearly

negates the unilateral claim of the revenue authorities that the land is

Government land. Accordingly, directed to delete from the list of

Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908.

15. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

have submitted that as far as the factual aspects are concerned, he

has not denied anything and there is no denial in the counter. But he

also relied on the classification made in the RSR. In view of the same,

the authorities have considered and rightly rejected the application

made by the petitioner. Hence for dismissal of the writ petition.

16. Considering the submissions made by both sides and on perusal

of the documents filed along with petition clearly discloses that basing

on the auction notification by respondents issued by the

Lankalakoduru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd and the petitioner has

participated in the said auction and the same was confirmed by the

concerned respondent vide proceedings dated 02.4.1996 and also on

perusal of the documents which were filed along with the writ petition

i.e. document no.1983/1996 dated 18.5.1996 was registered in favour

of the petitioner by the State instrumentalities. And also the

observations made in the above said judgment that the only RSR

entries will not confirm the rights of the respondent.

17. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the record, the

impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 02.6.2018 in both

the petitions are set aside and directing the respondents to delete the

subject properties from the prohibitory properties list and respondents

are directed to receive and register the documents if any submitted by

the petitioner in both the petitions, if otherwise in order.

18. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall

stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 08.11.2022 RD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION Nos.4402 of 2021 and 4927 of 2021 Dated 08.11.2022

RD