Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Reddy Ganganna S/O Subbanna, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 May, 2023

       THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

                 WRIT PETITION No.35699 of 2016

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

"...to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent

(a) In cancelling the already admitted Settlement Deed which was assigned with Doc.No.535/2016 executed by the writ petitioner and another in favour of his younger son one Mr.Reddy Siva Kumar by manipulating and erasing the entries in Book-I maintained under Part-XI of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 so as to make believe that the said document No.535/2016 to be a Mortgage Deed of third parties, as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, unjust and also lacking inherent jurisdiction, it also amounts to exceeding the powers vested in the 5th respondent under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (b) To also declare the action of the 5th respondent in passing refusal endorsement No.1 of 2016 based upon the 6th respondents letter and concluding that writ petitioner does not have title amounted to usurping the powers of a civil court being a quasi judicial authority not empowered to do so more so, in the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Yanala Malleshwari vs Ananthula Sayamma reported in 2006 (6) ALT 523 (FB) as illegal, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction (c) Consequentially to direct the respondents to restore back the original entries of assigning and admitting the writ petitioners Settlement document as Doc.No.535 of 2016 on the file of 5th respondent in the interest of justice (d) Consequentially to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate disciplinary action against

the 4th and 5th respondents for their gross misuse and abuse of their official functions...".

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's

father i.e., Sri. Reddy Subbanna, during his life time has

acquired lands in RS.No.32, to an extent of 1.02 cents through a

registered sale deed dated 23.03.1956, having purchased the

same from one Chundru Swami. After the death of his father, the

said property devolved upon the petitioner and his sons which

was sub-divided and after sub-divisional bifurcation, the

petitioner acquired an extent of 0.24 cents ( Ac.0.10 cents in

RS.No.31/2B, Ac.0.07 cents in RS.No.32/2B and Ac.0.07 cents

in RS.No.32/2C).

3. The said sub-division was done by the Tahsildar after

duly receiving a field survey report on 01.02.1968 and since then,

the petitioner has been in physical possession and enjoyment of

the same. Thereafter, in the year 2016, when the petitioner with

an intention to settle the said property to his elder son, has

executed a settlement deed on 26.01.2016 and presented the

same for registration after paying the requisite stamp duty,

registration charges and user charges to a tune of Rs.5,040/-.

The 5th respondent, after duly making all enquiries as

contemplated under Part-VI of the Indian Registration Act, 1908,

has registered the said document and admitted the same for

registration under Section 58 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908

by assigning Document No.535 of 2016 in Book-I under Section

60 of the Act, 1908, on 22.01.2016.

4. Thereafter, on 23.01.2016, the 5th respondent

received a complaint, from a third party by name Reddy Shiva

Prasad, claiming that he is the owner of different extents of land

in RS.No.31/part and 32/part, having purchased the same from

the petitioner's brother and has requested the 5th respondent to

cancel the said document in pursuance of which the 5th

respondent tampered the records and registers that are

maintained under Section 60 and 61 of the Act, 1908 by erasing

the name of the petitioner as against Doc.No.535/2015 and

assigning it to a Mortgage deed executed by one Reddy

Dhanamohan Rao in favour of Badampudi Large Size Co-

operative Society Ltd., who presented their document for

registration on 10.02.2016 and is evidenced by SBI challan. The

main grievance of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent had

manipulated the records as if the said document is presented for

registration on 22.01.2016 and that, it has been assigned with a

Regular Doc.No.535/2016.

5. Against the said illegal acts of the 5th respondent, the

petitioner has given a written complaint to the 3rd respondent-

District Collector, who in turn re-directed the complaint to the 4th

respondent-District Registrar herein. Thereafter, the 5th

respondent had submitted a letter to the 6th respondent, who

gave an erroneous and false reply on 26.04.2016, without looking

into to his earlier records by stating that the petitioner's name

appears only in RS.No.32/2C to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents and

does not appear in RS.Nos.32/2B and 31/2B, without

mentioning the total sub-divisional extents held by all the

persons in both the RS.Nos.31 and 32.

6. The further grievance of the petitioner is that, the 4th

respondent has given the petitioner a refusal endorsement vide

RC.No.391/2016/B, dated 26.04.2016, by making an entry in

Book-II, Volume-2, page-29, as refusal Doc.No.1 of 2016 which is

totally manipulated and tampered record. Thereafter, the

petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 72 of the Act, 1908

before the 4th respondent, which was rejected vide C.No.710 of

2016/G1, dated 08.09.2016, without even verifying the records.

7. The respondent No.5, filed a counter affidavit stating

that the petitioner herein and his son executed a Settlement Deed

dt.22.1.2016 in favour of Reddy Siva Kumar in respect of an

extent of 0.10 cents in Sy.No.31/2B, an extent of Ac.0.07 cents in

Sy.No.32/2B and an extent of Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.No.32/2C

situated in Krishnayapalem Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal,

West Godavari District and presented the same before the then

Sub-Registrar, Tadepalligudem for Registration by paying

requisite Stamp Duty and Registration Fee.

8. The then Sub- Registrar, Tadepalligudem received

the document, assigned document No.535 of 2016 and sent the

same for scanning during the evening hours of 22.1.2016. Due to

rush of work, the scanning could not be completed on that day,

but, however, on the next day i.e., on 23.1.2016 one Mr.Reddy

Shiva Prasad approached the then Sub-Registrar and gave a

written complaint stating that he is the owner of the following

lands vide khatha No.573 and Pass Book No.E575269.

R.S.No.31/2A: Ac.0.62cts R.S.No.31/2B: Ac.0.10cts R.S.No.32/2B: Ac.0.12cts R.S.No.32/2C: Ac.0.04cts R.S.No.32/2D: Ac.0.12cts R.S.No.32/2F: Ac.0.25cts

He further stated that he has not sold the said properties

in Sy.No.31/2B, 32/2B and 32/2C to anybody and he came to

know that some third parties executed a Settlement deed in

respect of his property vide document No.535/2016 and

requested to stop the registration.

9. It is submitted that by the time the complaint was

received by the then Sub-Registrar, the scanning process is not

completed. Immediately, the then Sub-Registrar stopped

registration of the Settlement deed. During that process, both

parties quarrelled with each other and created nuisance in the

office of the Sub-Registrar, Tadepalligudem. Having no other

alternate, the then Sub-Registrar cancelled the regular number

allotted to the Settlement deed and assigned the said regular

document No.535/2016 to another document and kept the

Settlement Deed pending vide P.No.190/2016. Thereafter, the

then Sub-Registrar addressed a letter dt.16.4.2016 to the

Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem requesting him to inform the names of

the original pattadar of the subject property as per revenue

records.

10. It is also stated that on 18.4.2016, the petitioner

made a representation to the District Collector, West Godavari

during Prajavani/Meekosam programme requesting to take

action against the then Sub-Registrar for not registering his

Settlement Deed. The District Collector in turn forwarded the

same to the then District Registrar, Eluru i.e., the 4th respondent

for taking necessary action. Immediately, the 4th respondent

called for explanation of the then Sub-Registrar over telephone.

The then Sub-Registrar submitted his explanation dt. 18.4.2016,

stating that he addressed a letter to the Tahsildar,

Tadepalligudem seeking particulars of the names of the original

Pattadar of the subject land and on receipt of reply from the

Tahsildar, he will take necessary action on the pending

document. The petitioner made a similar representation to the

Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps

and the same was forwarded to the 4th respondent.

11. It is submitted that in reply to the letter addressed by

the then Sub- Registrar, the Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem through

letter dt.26.4.2016 informed as follows:


Sl.   R.S.      Extent   Name        of   the     Name        of     the   Enjoyment

                         Pattadar                 Enjoydar                 extent Ac.Cts.
No.   NO.       Ac.Cts


1.    31-2B     0.10     Reddy Siva Prasad,       Siva Prasad Reddy,       0.10

                         S/o. Sanjeeva Rao        S/o.       Sanjeevarao

                                                  Reddy


2.    32-2C     0.13     Reddy Siva Prasad,       Siva Prasad Reddy,       0.04

                         S/o Sanjeeva Rao.        S/o. Sanjeevarao


                         Reddy      Ganganna,     Reddy       Ganganna





                    S/o Subbanna         S/o. Subbanna         0.09




3.   32-2B   0.12   Reddy Siva Prasad,   Siva Prasad Reddy,    0.12

                                         S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy
                    S/o. Sanjeeva Rao

12. On receipt of the reply from the Tahsildar, the then

Sub-Registrar passed order No.1/2016 Dt.30.5.2016 Under

Section 71 of the Registration Act refusing registration of the

Settlement deed vide P.No.190/2016, communicated a copy of

the refusal order to the petitioner and returned the original

document to him. It is submitted that aggrieved by the refusal

order dt.30.5.2016, the petitioner herein and his son Reddy Ravi

Kumar filed an Appeal before the 4th respondent on 21.6.2016.

Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued notice dt.11.7.2016 to both

the parties and to the then Sub-Registrar, Tadepalligudem

requesting them to appear before the 4th respondent on

18.7.2016 for enquiry. On 18.7.2016 the then Sub-Registrar as

well as all the concerned parties appeared before the 4th

respondent. After conducting enquiry, as the name of the

petitioner is not tallying with the webland record, the 4th

respondent rejected the appeal presented by the petitioner vide

C.No.710/2016/G1 dt.8.9.2016.

13. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner

approached this Hon'ble court and filed the above writ petition on

20.10.2016. On 1.11.2016 when the above matter came up

before this Hon'ble court, this Hon'ble court has passed the

following order:

"When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue states that pursuant to the report given by the petitioner, dt.19.4.2016, notice has been issued to the Sub-Registrar.

If any enquiry is sought to be conducted by the authorities concerned, the writ petitioner maybe given opportunity to participate in the said enquiry and assist the authority with necessary documents."

14. Pursuant to the above said order, the 4th respondent

issued a notice dt.17.2.2017 to the petitioner as well as to the

then Sub-Registrar requesting them to attend before the 4th

respondent on 27.2.2017 at 2 P.M. for enquiry. Both of them

attended the enquiry and the 4th respondent recorded their

depositions. The then Sub-Registrar signed on his deposition

wherein he agreed the mistake committed by him whereas the

petitioner refused to sign the same and went away. After

conducting enquiry, the respondent having come to a conclusion

that the then Sub-Registrar has committed illegality in erasing

the regular document No.535/2016 with white fluid and assigned

the same to another document and not assigned the pending

number immediately after receipt of the document, submitted the

enquiry report to the Deputy Inspector General of Registration

and Stamps, Eluru requesting him to take action against the

then Sub-Registrar for the irregularity committed by him, as per

rules. In the meanwhile, the then Sub-Registrar Gudipudi Raju

was trapped by the A.C.B authorities and at present he had been

dismissed from service.

15. Further, with regard to the title of the petitioner in

respect of the subject property, it is submitted that the Chief

Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad issued a

Circular No. 2/162/1/2012 dt.2.7.2013 stating that when the

applicant approached the Sub-Registrar for registration with the

required documents such as Aadhaar Card or other ID cards,

PPB & Title Deed and ROR 1B, the Sub-Registrar should verify

the seller particulars with Pattadar name in webland records. In

case, if seller name matches with the Pattadar name in web land

software, registration will be done at SRO's end and registration

particulars will be automatically processed through CARD

software to web land software. In case if seller name does not

matches with Pattadar name, SRO should not register the

document and should guide the seller to approach Meeseva

centre to apply for mutation and further requested the

Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration of Stamps to

issue instructions in this regard.

16. Based on this Circular, the Commissioner and

Inspector General of Registration and Stamps issued a

Memo.No.G1/9732/2013 dt.17.7.2013 stating that the

particulars of the Seller should match with the particulars in the

web land provided by the Revenue Department. In the instant

case, as per the report submitted by the Tahsildar, as against the

extent of Ac.0.24 as claimed by the petitioner, he got only Ac.0.09

cents in Sy.No.32-2C and he own no land in the other survey

numbers.

17. In view of the circular dated 02.07.2013 and as well

as the subsequent memo dated 17.07.2013 issued by the

Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps,

it is clear that the Sub-Registrar's power is restricted only to the

extent of registering the document basing on the documents

furnished by the vendor, such as Aadhar Card or other ID Cards,

pattadar pass book and title deeds and ROR 1B, after duly

verifying the seller particulars with Pattadar name in webland

records and if at all the name of the seller matches with the name

of the pattadar in the webland software, the Sub-Registrar can

proceed with the registration. But, if at all it does not match with

the pattadar name, the Sub-Registrar is not entitled to register

the said document.

18. But, however, in such case, the seller should

approach the Meeseva Centre to apply for mutation and then

approach the sub-registrar. In the present case, admittedly, the

name of the seller in the pattadar did not tally with the webland

software. As such, the Sub-Registrar kept the document pending

by allotting P.No.190/2016, which was further confirmed in the

appeal under Section 72.

19. For a better appreciation of this case, this Court feels

it relevant to refer to Section 77, of the Indian Registration Act,

1908, which reads as follows:

"(1) Where the Registrar refuses to order the document to be registered, under section 72 or a decree section 76, any person claiming under such document, or his representative, assign or agent, may, within thirty days after the making of the order of refusal, institute in the Civil Court, within the local limits of whose original jurisdiction is situate the office in which the document is sought to be registered, a suit for a decree directing the document to be registered in such office if it be duly presented for registration within thirty days after the passing of such decree.

(2) The provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 75 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to all documents presented for registration in accordance with any such decree, and, notwithstanding anything contained in this

Act, the documents shall be receivable in evidence in such suit."

20. As the appeal has already been rejected by the

District Registrar, the petitioner, as per Circular dated

02.07.2013, should apply for mut ation in the Meeseva Centre

and thereafter, should approach the Sub-Registrar. As the

present case involves certain disputed questions of fact whether

the document was registered on 22.01.2016 or on 23.01.2016, it

can be decided only by the Civil Court.

21. In view of the above, this Court feels it appropriate to

dispose of the writ petition by leaving it open to the petitioner to

approach competent Civil Court in accordance with Section 77 of

the Indian Registration Act, 1908, raising all his grievances, if

any, as raised herein.