Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M.Subbalakshumma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 October, 2022

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

                        W.P.No.9589 OF 2022

ORDER:

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing respondent

Nos.2 to 4 to delete the petitioner's properties from the prohibitory list

maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and further

direct the respondent No.4 to receive, register and release the

documents presented by the petitioner for registration.

2. As can be seen, it is the 3rd round of litigation. Succinctly

stating, originally the subject property in an extent of Ac.0.97 cents in

Sy.No.504; Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.506/1; Ac.2.00 cents in

Sy.No.495/2; Ac.0.39 cents in Sy.No.506/3 and Ac.1.85 cents in

Sy.No.491/2 totaling Ac.6.21 cents of Peddapalli Village, Siddavatam

Mandal of Kadapa District was assigned in favour of the petitioner.

She mortgaged the subject property to Kadapa District Cooperative

Central Bank Ltd., Kadapa and when she committed default, the bank

initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of A.P.

Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and award No.2036/2005-2006, dated

02.02.2006 was passed and the said award was put in execution vide ::2::

E.P.No.419/2005-2006. In the public auction the petitioner's husband

M. Nageswar Reddy purchased the subject property and sale

certificate dated 17.07.2006 was issued in his favour.

3. While so, when the said M. Nageswar Reddy, proposed to

transfer the subject property to 3rd parties, the registration authorities

refused to receive and register the document on the ground that the

Tahsildar sent a list of assigned lands to Registration Department and

subject property is covered by the said list and hence registration

cannot be effected. Aggrieved, the petitioner's husband filed WP

No.10934/2012 in the Common High Court of A.P. which was

disposed of by order dated 07.04.2012 as follows:

"The only reason mentioned by the 2nd respondent in the letter communicated to the 3rd respondent is that the lands are shown as assigned in the relevant records. It is no doubt true that the lands are assigned at one point of time and that Section 22-A of the Registration Act as amended through Act 19 of 2007 prohibits registration of documents pertaining to assigned lands. However, the lands were mortgaged in favour of the Kadapa District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kadapa and once they were brought to sale, they loose the character of assigned lands. Such transactions are exempted under Section 6 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. In W.P.No.14750 of 2007, this Court took the view that once an assigned land was brought to sale by a Cooperative Bank, the prohibition contained ::3::

under Section 22-A of the Registration Act does not apply for them. The same was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.950 of 2007.

Hence, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside."

4. Pursuant to the said order M. Nageswar Reddy executed gift

deed dated 25.03.2013 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the

subject property. When the petitioner applied for mutation of her

name in the revenue records, the Tahsildar, Siddavatam Mandal

accordingly mutated all lands but Ac.1.85 cents in Sy.No.491/2. On

her representation, the Mandal Surveyor inspected the land in an

extent of Ac.3.44 cents 491/2 and submitted report to the Tahsildar

stating that the petitioner is in possession of Ac.1.87 cents in

Sy.No.491/2. Even then the Tahsildar did not take action to mutate

her name in respect of the aforesaid property. The petitioner's

representation to the RDO, Rajampet also did not yield fruitful results.

Hence the petitioner filed W.P.No.11049/2017 before the Common

High Court of Andhra Pradesh. A learned single Judge disposed of

the writ petition on 28.03.2017 and directed the 2nd respondent to

complete the enquiry pursuant to the notice dated 05.01.2017 and take

action in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said direction, the 5th ::4::

respondent herein conducted enquiry and mutated petitioner's name in

all the revenue records and issued pattadar passbook and title deed.

5. Now coming to the present writ petition, the petitioner's case is

that recently the petitioner approached the 4th respondent to ascertain

the market value of the subject property to register in favour of 3rd

parties. However, the 4th respondent informed her that the registration

of the subject lands is not possible because they are included in the

prohibitory list. The petitioner made a representation dated

19.02.2022 and the 4th respondent informed her that the subject lands

are included in the prohibitory list pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.200, dated

05.05.2016 and pursuant to the proceedings of 2nd respondent in

POT/364/2016, dt: 10.03.2018.

Hence the writ petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri G. Ramesh Babu and

learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Stamps & Registration

representing respondents.

7. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for the

petitioner Sri G Ramesh Babu is that though initially the subject lands

were assigned lands and prohibited from alienation under the ::5::

provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of

Transfers) Act, 1977, however there was no prohibition for the

petitioner who is the assignee to mortgage the assigned lands in favour

of Kadapa District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kadapa to secure

loan and accordingly she obtained the loan and when she failed to

redeem the debt, the said KDCC Bank obtained award against the

petitioner and brought the mortgaged lands to sale in the execution

petition No.419/2005-2006 and in the said auction, the petitioner's

husband M. Nageswar Reddy purchased the subject lands for valuable

consideration. Referring to several decisions viz., (1) Sub Registrar,

Srikalahasti v. K. Guravaiah1 (2) State of A.P. v. P. Usha Rani2

and (3) Government of A.P. v. T. Krishna Murthy3, learned

counsel would vehemently argue that in all those decisions, the High

Court of A.P. has categorically held that the lands which were

assigned by the State can be mortgaged by the assignee in favour of

the Central or State Government or any local authority, a cooperative

society, a scheduled bank or such other financial institution owned,

controlled or managed by a State Government or the Central

2009 (3) ALT 85

2018 (1) ALT 62

2018 (6) ALD 686 ::6::

Government as may be notified by the Government in this behalf.

Learned counsel would further submit that if the mortgager fails to

redeem the debt, the mortgaged lands can be sold for recovery of the

debt by the banks and other institutions and sale will be valid in such a

case. On such sale of the land by way of an auction conducted by the

bank, the property ceases to be the assigned land and losses its

character as such and the auction purchaser gets valuable title over the

property. Learned counsel would vehemently argue that in view of

the above settled legal position, the subject property lost its character

as assigned land once the Kadapa District Cooperative Central Bank

Ltd., Kadapa sold those lands in public auction and purchased by M.

Nageswar Reddy, the husband of the petitioner. That was the reason

why in WP No.10934/2012 filed by said M. Nageswar Reddy, the

common High Court of A.P having regard to the established legal

position, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent

authorities to register the document of transfer presented by him.

Pursuant to the said order, petitioner's husband has gifted the subject

lands in favour of the petitioner under registered gift deed dated

25.03.2013. Learned counsel would further argue that when again

revenue authorities refused to mutate the petitioner's name in the ::7::

revenue records in respect of some of the properties gifted in her

favour on the ground that those lands are assigned lands, in the

resultant writ petition No.11049/2017 filed by the petitioner the High

Court of A.P. came to her rescue and directed the revenue authorities

to conduct enquiry and accordingly the gifted lands were mutated in

her favour. In spite of the aforesaid background facts, learned counsel

would lament, the respondent authorities kept the subject lands in the

prohibitory list U/s 22A of the Registration Act.

8. On perusal of the record, particularly the judgment in WP

No.10934/2012 and WP No.11049/2017 and also the above cited

decisions, I find considerable force in the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the subject lands were

originally assigned to the petitioner and as per the provisions of

Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977

(Act No.9 of 1977) an embargo was created against transfer of those

properties. However, it must be said an exception has been created

under Section 6 of the said Act. The said section reads thus:

"6. Exemption:- Nothing in this Act shall apply to the assigned lands held on mortgage by the State or Central Government, any local authority, a co-operative society, a scheduled bank or such other ::8::

financial institution owned, controlled or managed by a State Government or the Central Government, as may be notified by the Government in this behalf.".

9. Therefore, it is clear that assigned lands can be mortgaged with

cooperative societies and banks and it is needless to emphasize that in

case of default, such societies and banks can realize the debt amount

by sale of the property in the public auction. When once the lands

were sold, they ceased to be the assigned lands and become private

patta lands. This is the legal position enunciated in the above

decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. As such, the

revenue authorities are not empowered or competent to again place the

subject lands in the prohibitory list. Such action on their part is

violative of Section 6 of the Act 9 of 1977 and also the spirit of the

above rulings. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and respondent