Barre Satyavani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2182 AP

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                  WRIT PETITION No.9328 of 2022
Between:-

Barre Satyavani                                   .... Petitioner

                                  And

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented
by its Principal Secretary,
Registration & Stamps Department,
A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur District and Others. ..... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner       : Mr.K.Sarvabouma Rao

Counsel for the respondents       : G.P. for Stamps & Registration
                                    G.P. for Revenue

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents.

2. The Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction of the 2nd

respondent-Joint Sub-Registrar, Gajuwaka in registering and

releasing the Sale Deed Pending Registration Document

No.1203/2019 dated 24.07.2019 on the basis of a Communication

dated 28.08.2019 addressed by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar,

Gajuwaka that the subject matter land is a Government land, is

illegal, unjust, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the 2nd

respondent-Joint Sub Registrar to register, release and deliver the

registered document in respect of the subject matter property.

3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner purchased land of

an extent of Ac.1.10 cents in Survey No.23/1 of Kurmanapalem

Village, Gajuwaka Mandal under Registered Possessory Sale

Agreement-cum-GPA dated 29.12.2004. Subsequently, she

purchased another extent of Ac.0.80 cents in the said survey

number through Registered Possessory Sale Agreement-cum-GPA

dated 02.03.2005 and thus became the absolute owner and

possessor of the total extent of Ac.1.90 cents covered under Survey

No.23/1. He submits that when the revenue authorities including

the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar herein were trying to interfere with the

petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property

purchased by her, she filed a suit in O.S.No.243 of 2012 on the file

the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka and by a Judgment dated

02.01.2013, the said suit was decreed granting Permanent

Injunction restraining the defendants/revenue officials, their men,

agents etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the suit schedule property.

4. He further submits that against the said Judgment and

Decree, the revenue authorities filed A.S.No.4 of 2014 on the file of

the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka and by a

Judgment dated 31.12.2014, the appellate Court dismissed the

appeal and the same has attained finality, as no further appeal was

preferred against the said dismissal order. The learned counsel

submits that in the interregnum, the petitioner and others filed

W.P.No.22969 of 2013, aggrieved by an Endorsement dated

02.07.2013 issued by the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka refusing to mutate

the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of land

admeasuring Ac.1.60 cents in Survey No.23/1(corresponding to Old

Survey No.23/3) of Kurmanapalem Village, on the premise that the

Settlement patta issued in favour of their predecessors was not

produced. He submits that a learned Judge of the erstwhile

Combined High Court for the State of Telangana and for the State of

Andhra Pradesh while dealing with the connected W.P.No.37286 of

2014, allowed the Writ Petition No.22969 of 2013 filed by the

petitioner & others by setting aside the Endorsement dated

02.07.2013. He submits that despite the above undisputed position,

the action of the 2nd respondent in keeping the registration of Sale

Deed executed in favour of M/s.Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Financiers

for an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in Survey No.23/1 pending under the

guise of the Communication dated 28.08.2019 by the 3rd

respondent, is wholly unsustainable. The learned counsel submits

that non-registration of the document solely in view of a letter

advanced by the concerned Tahsildar is not tenable in Law and

unless the registration of a property is prohibited in terms of the

provisions of the Registration Act or by virtue of an Order of the

Court restraining registration of any property, the registration

authorities cannot refuse to register a document. Making the said

submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Writ Petition, as

prayed for.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on

the other hand, advanced arguments and submits that the

petitioner had not filed any material/documents in proof of her title

in respect of the subject matter property. Drawing the attention of

this Court to the relevant portion of the orders in W.P.No.22969 of

2013, he submits that no opinion was expressed by the learned

Judge in respect of the title over the subject matter property and it

was left open to all the parties therein to avail appropriate remedies

in appropriate Forum to establish their right, title and interest in the

same. Referring to the averments made in the counter-affidavit, he

further submits that as per the communication dated 28.08.2019,

the land of an extent of Ac.1.60 cents in Survey No.23/1 of

Kurmanapalem Village is classified as Gayalau(Government land)

and in view of the same, the document is not registered, though the

said property was not listed under Section 22-A of the Registration

Act in prohibited properties list, as it is the bounden duty of the

officials to protect the valuable lands of the Government. Making

the said submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

submits that the petitioner instead of waiting for orders on the

Pending Document, filed the present Writ Petition and the same is

not maintainable. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the Writ

Petition.

6. This Court has considered the submissions and perused the

material on record including the Judgment and Decree in

O.S.No.243 of 2012, which is confirmed in A.S.No.4 of 2014 by the

Appellate Court, as also the order passed by the learned Judge in

W.P.Nos.22969 of 2013 & 37286 of 2014 referred to supra.

7. O.S.No.243 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner on the basis of

the Registered Possessory Sale Agreement-cum-GPA, dated

29.12.2004 and 02.03.2005. In the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff

sought for Permanent Injunction in respect of land to an extent of

Ac.0.27 cents in Survey No.23/1, which was purchased under

Registered Possessory Sale Agreement-cum-GPA dated 29.12.2004.

While answering the issues in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner, the

learned Trial Court recorded categorical findings that the documents

clearly establishes that the suit schedule property is lying in Survey

No.23/1 and the same is not lying in Survey No.32/1 and it is not

the Government land and the plaintiff established not only her title

over the suit schedule property, but also her possession from the

date of filing of the suit and no such oral evidence and document

was adduced on behalf of the defendants to disprove the case of

plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff is entitled for a equitable relief of

Permanent Injunction as well as mandatory injunction as prayed for.

The learned Trial Court while decreeing the suit for Permanent

Injunction directed the revenue officials to incorporate the name of

plaintiff/petitioner in 10(1) Adangal and 10(3) Adangal and other

relevant records. It is not in dispute that against the said Judgment

and Decree, the revenue officials preferred an appeal and the same

was dismissed, thereby the matter attained finality.

8. Be that as it may. As seen from the order in Writ Petition

Nos.22969 of 2013 and 37286 of 2014 referred to supra, the

petitioner herein and others claimed title to an extent of Ac.1.90

cents in Survey No.23/1 of Kurmanapalem Village, while the

petitioners in W.P.No.37286 of 2014, claimed title to an extent of

Ac.0.46 cents in the same survey number, which was disputed by

the revenue authorities. The learned Judge while setting aside the

Endorsement dated 02.07.2013 of the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Mandal

refusing to mutate the names of the petitioners in W.P.No.22969 of

2013 in the revenue records observed as follows:

"17.Having regard to the finding in the judgment dt.31.12.2014 in A.S.No.4 of 2014 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka that the land is no longer cultivable and has become urbanized, the endorsement dt.02.07.2013 of the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka is declared as one without jurisdiction.

18. This does not mean that this Court is expressing any opinion on the title of either petitioners in W.P.No.22969 of 2013 or of the State of Andhra Pradesh or petitioners in W.P.No.37286 of 2014. It is open to all the parties to take appropriate remedies in appropriate forum to establish their right, title and interest in the subject property.

19. Therefore, W.P.No.22969 of 2013 is allowed and the endorsement dt.02.07.2013 of the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka is set aside subject to the above observations. No costs."

9. No material is placed before this Court as to whether any

appeal is preferred against the orders of the learned Judge in the

above referred Writ Petitions. No information is also forthcoming as

to whether any of the parties have approached the appropriate

Forum, in terms of the above observations.

10. Be that as it may. As seen from the averments made in the

counter-affidavit, more particularly, Para No.3, it would appear that

the registration of the document presented by the petitioner was

kept pending though the land is not listed under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act in view of the information/communication of the 3rd

respondent that the property in question is 'Gayalau' (Government

land). Thus it is clear that the subject matter property is not listed

in the prohibited category list under Section 22-A of the Registration

Act and in such circumstances, non-registration of Sale Deed on the

basis of a communication by the 3rd respondent is not just or

tenable in Law, more particularly, in the light of the categorical

finding recorded by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.243 of

2012. The 2nd respondent is not bound by the Communication dated

28.08.2019 and required to consider the document presented by the

petitioner, subject to the provisions of the Registration Act.

11. In such view of the matter and in the light of the averments

in the counter-affidavit to the effect that while scrutinizing the

document in detail regarding the possibility to register in the

absence of Communication of Notification under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act, it is noticed that the document in question suffers

from deficiency in duty & fees and action is being initiated to realize

the deficit amount, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the

Writ Petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to take

necessary action for registering the document in question, subject

to the compliance with the other requirements of the Stamps and

Registration Act, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six

(6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

12. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 21.04.2023 BLV

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

W.P.No.9328 of 2022

Date: 21.04.2023

BLV