Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Indus Gene Expressions Limited, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
****
WRIT PETITION No.5395 of 2024
M/s. Indus Gene Expressions Limited, No:6-312,
Kanisettipalli Post, Koduru Village, Chilamathur Mandal,
Anantapur District, Rep. By its authorized signatory,
Rachamalla Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o R. Siva Shankar
Reddy, aged about 40 years, R/o D.No.1-150, Ullikallu
Post & Village, Sinaganamala Mandal, Ananthapur
District.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal
Secretary, Revenue (Registration & Stamps) Department,
Secretariat Buildings, at Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra
Pradesh and four others.
... Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 01.05.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No
_____________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Page 2 of 31
SRS,J
W.P.No.5395 of 2024
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
+ WRIT PETITION No.5395 of 2024
% 01.05.2024
WRIT PETITION No.5395 of 2024
M/s. Indus Gene Expressions Limited, No:6-312,
Kanisettipalli Post, Koduru Village, Chilamathur Mandal,
Anantapur District, Rep. By its authorized signatory,
Rachamalla Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o R. Siva Shankar
Reddy, aged about 40 years, R/o D.No.1-150, Ullikallu
Post & Village, Sinaganamala Mandal, Ananthapur
District.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal
Secretary, Revenue (Registration & Stamps) Department,
Secretariat Buildings, at Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra
Pradesh and four others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri P. Narahari Babu
^ Counsel for Respondents : GP for Revenue and GP for
Stamps and Registration
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) 2006 (4) SCC 322
2) 1986 (4) SCC 566
3) 2014 (4) SCC 108
4) 2013 (10) SCC 327
5) 1998 (2) SCC 523
6) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462
7) 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 4
8) AIR 1961 SC 1747
9) 2003 (1) SCC 692
10) 1987 (3) SCC 279
This Court made the following:
Page 3 of 31
SRS,J
W.P.No.5395 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.5395 of 2024
M/s. Indus Gene Expressions Limited, No:6-312,
Kanisettipalli Post, Koduru Village, Chilamathur Mandal,
Anantapur District, Rep. By its authorized signatory,
Rachamalla Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o R. Siva Shankar
Reddy, aged about 40 years, R/o D.No.1-150, Ullikallu
Post & Village, Sinaganamala Mandal, Ananthapur
District.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal
Secretary, Revenue (Registration & Stamps) Department,
Secretariat Buildings, at Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra
Pradesh and four others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Narahari Babu
Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue and GP for Stamps and
Registration
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"... to issue a Writ, One in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or
any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order declaring the
action of the 5th respondent in refusing the document after
giving P.No.232 of 2016 vide refusal order dated 09.09.2016 in
respect of land in an extent of Ac.0-95 cents in Sy.No.178/2
situated at Koduru Village and Panchayat, Chilamathur Mandal,
Sri Sathya Sai District erstwhile Anantapur District on the
ground the scheduled property is a assigned land as per list
communicated by Tahsildar, Chilamathur on Under Section 22-
SRS,J
A (1) (A) of Registration Act, 1908 as illegal, arbitrary and
unconstitutional, violative of provisions of Registration Act, 1908
and set aside the same and consequently direct the 4th and 5th
respondents to receive, admit the sale deed in respect of above
said land for registration and release the same and pass such
other order or orders ..."
2. The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that petitioner's
vendors namely Vaddi Venkata Ramudu, Vaddi Adhi Lakshmamma
and Vaddi Saraswathi are the absolute owners of the land of an
extent of Ac.0-95 cents in survey No.178/2 situated at Koduru Village
and Panchayat, Chilamathur Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. Names
vendors of Petitioner's were mutated in all the revenue records. After
verifying the ownership of the vendors, petitioner purchased property
for a valuable consideration and accordingly sale deed dated
30.08.2016 was executed and possession of the property was
delivered to the petitioner. When the document was presented for
registration before respondent No.5, it was assigned P.No.232 of
2016 and the same was kept pending. Subsequently, respondent
No.5, by endorsement dated 09.09.2016, refused registration of the
document, on the ground that "the scheduled property is a assigned
land as per list communicated by Tahsildar, Chilamathur on Under
Section 22-A(1)(a) of Registration Act, 1908".
SRS,J
b) The deponent could not take further steps since he has
no knowledge about further legal process. After the amendment of
The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,
1977 (for short 'POT Act'), vide Act 35 of 2023, petitioner
approached respondent No.5, registering authority, who informed
that since document is refused, it cannot be processed, unless the
endorsement is set aside. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The instructions of respondent No.5 furnished vide letter
No.4/2021 dated 23.03.2024 are placed on record. It is stated that
against refusal order, an appeal would lie to the District Registrar
under Section 72 of the Registration Act. The free hold orders issued
by the revenue authorities in respect of survey No.178/2 of Koduru
Village, are not communicated to the Sub-Registrar, Chilamathur
Mandal. The property is still in the list of prohibited properties.
4. Heard Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Dilip Nayak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Revenue/Stamps and Registration for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land
of an extent of Ac.0-95 cents in survey No.178/2 in Koduru Village,
purchased by the petitioner was included in the list of prohibited
properties under Section 22-A (1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908
SRS,J
(hereinafter referred to as the Registration Act) and subsequently the
said property was made free hold in the year, 2023. He would submit
that Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the Assigned Lands Act was
amended by Act 35 of 2023 by adding Section 2(i). He would submit
that the land purchased by the petitioner is not shown as free-hold in
adangal/pahani dated 13.02.2024 and in the column 'nature of land
cist', it was mentioned as 'the assigned land made freehold in the
year 2023. He would submit that since the land is now made
freehold there is no restriction to register the document, dated
30.08.2016, presented by the parties in the year, 2016 and hence
the endorsement dated 9-9-2016 is liable to be set aside. In support
of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
judgments rendered in W.P.Nos.21437 of 2023, 4021 of 2020 and
2219 of 2020.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand
would contend that against the order of Sub-Registrar, petitioner has
effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 72 of the
Registration Act. He would submit that if the petitioner is
unsuccessful in appeal, further remedy of filing of suit is also
available under Section 77 of the Registration Act. The petitioner
without availing the statutory remedies, invoked extra-ordinary
jurisdiction nearly after eight years. He would submit that in the
SRS,J
affidavit, petitioner did not explain regarding laches. Hence, prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the endorsement dated 09.09.2016, vide refusal order
No.18 of 2016, issued in doc P.232 of 2016 by respondent No.5
is liable to be set aside?
2. Whether petitioner availed effective and alternative remedy?
3. Whether the petitioner explained the laches in approaching this
Court against the endorsement dated 09.09.2016? If not, the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed?
4. Whether adding of Sub-Section 2(i) to Section 3 by amended
Act 35 of 2023 would entitle the petitioner to get the document
P.No.232/2016 register now?
8. As seen from the averments of the writ affidavit, the document
filed along with writ petition and the endorsement, dated 09.09.2016,
there is no dispute that V. Venkataramudu, S/o Late V.
Hanumanthappa; V. Adi Lakshmamma, W/o Venkata Ramappa, D/o
Late V. Hanumanthappa and V. Saraswathi, W/o V. Venkataramudu,
executed sale deed in respect of the subject property in favour of the
petitioner, on 30.08.2016. A perusal of the copy of said document
filed along with writ petition discloses that vendors received sale
SRS,J
consideration and delivered the property to the vendee. When the
document was presented for registration before respondent No.5,
respondent No.5 assigned P.No.232/2016. By endorsement dated
09.09.2016 vide refusal order 18 of 2016, Sub-Registrar refused to
register the document. The relevant part of the refusal order reads
thus:
"The schedule property is an Assigned land as per list
communicated by Tahsildar, Chilamathur on under rule
22(A)(1)(a) of Registration Act, 1908."
9. The said order was passed by respondent No.5, by exercising
power under Section 71 of the Registration Act. It is apt to extract
Section 71 of the Act:
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
SRS,J
hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be
registered.
10. Thus, a perusal of the section would discern that every
registering officer, if refuses to register the document except where
property is situated beyond its sub-district, shall endorse 'registration
refused'. Unless the said endorsement is set aside, the document
cannot be registered.
11. Against the order of refusal passed under Section 71, statutory
remedy is provided under Section 72 of the Registration Act, which
reads thus:
72. Appeal to Registrar from orders of Sub-Registrar
refusing registration on ground other than denial of
execution.--(1) Except where the refusal is made on the
ground of denial of execution, an appeal shall lie against an
order of a Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document to
registration (whether the registration of such document is
compulsory or optional) to the Registrar to whom such Sub-
Registrar is subordinate, if presented to such Registrar within
thirty days from the date of the order; and the Registrar may
reverse or alter such order.
(2) If the order of the Registrar directs the document to be
registered and the document is duly presented for registration
within thirty days after the making of such order, the Sub-
Registrar shall obey the same, and thereupon shall, so far as
may be practicable, follow the procedure prescribed in
sections 58, 59 and 60; and such registration shall take effect
SRS,J
as if the document had been registered when it was first duly
presented for registration.
12. As per Section 72(1), an appeal must be presented within 30
days from the date of the order except in case of refusal of
registration on account of denial of execution. If the District Registrar
confirms the order of Sub-Registrar under Section 72 or under
Section 76 of the Registration Act, any person claiming under such
document or representative, assignee or agent may within thirty days
after that order institute a suit in Civil Court for decree directing the
document to be registered as per Section 77 of the Act.
13. Thus, the Act, itself provides mechanism when the Sub-
Registrar makes endorsement refusing to register the document.
When such an effective alternative remedy is provided, the petitioner
ought to have availed the remedy. In fact, 30 days' time is provided
to file appeal and to approach Civil Court.
14. In the case at hand, as stated supra, the Sub-Registrar passed
endorsement on 09.09.2016, refusing to register the document.
However, the petitioner failed to avail effective and alternative
remedy available under the statute.
15. In para No.5 of the writ affidavit, it is stated as under:
SRS,J
"... though the Sub-Registrar refused the above said
document I could not move further against said refusal order
as I have no knowledge about further legal process."
16. As seen from the cause title, petitioner is a company, and
deponent is its authorized signatory and employee. It is beyond
imagination that the authorized person of the petitioner-company is
not aware of further steps against endorsement made by Sub-
Registrar, refusing to register the document. Only to overcome the
laches such a plea was raised in the affidavit and such a plea is
meritless. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner filed
present writ petition after the land was kept in free hold, as seen
from the copy of Adangal filed along with the writ petition. Petitioner
failed to explain latches in not availing the remedy at the earliest
point of time.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again is reiterating that while
exercising jurisdiction under Art 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Courts should take into consideration delay and latches.
18. In Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman &
Managing Director v. K. Thangappan and another1 the Hon'ble Apex
Court observed as under;
(2006) 4 SCC 322
SRS,J
"Delay and laches are one of the factors which is to be borne
in mind by the High Court when they exercise their
discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In
an appropriate case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its
extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission
on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in
conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances,
causes prejudice to the opposite party....."
19. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal2 the Apex
Court observed as under;
"The High Court in the exercise of its discretion does
not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the
acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on
the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay
is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to
intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon
a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit
a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ
jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public
inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. The rights
of third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is
exercised on a writ petition filed after unreasonable delay, it
may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and
inconvenience but also injustice on third parties....."
20. In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
and others v. T.T.Murali Babu3 the Apex Court observed as under;
(1986) 4 SCC 566
SRS,J
"... the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly
brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the
explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The
court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary
and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a
duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is
to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an
aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the
court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under
legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage
should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the
way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may
not be fatal but, in most circumstances, inordinate delay would
only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of
the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a
litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely,
"procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law
does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix...."
21. In Londhe Prakash Bhagwan vs Dattatraya Eknath Mane And
Ors4 the Apex Court observed as under;
"....Now, the sole question which falls for our consideration is :
when an aggrieved person can apply before the Court, if no
limitation is prescribed in the statute for filing an appeal before
the appropriate forum. We have duly considered the said
question. Even if we assume that no limitation is prescribed in
any statute to file an application before the court in that case,
can an aggrieved person come before the court at his sweet
(2014) 4 SCC 108
(2013) 10 SCC 327
SRS,J
will at any point of time? The answer must be in the negative.
If no time-limit has been prescribed in a statute to apply before
the appropriate forum, in that case, he has to come before the
court within a reasonable time. This Court on a number of
occasions, while dealing with the matter of similar nature held
that where even no limitation has been prescribed, the petition
must be filed within a reasonable time. In our considered
opinion, the period of 9 years and 11 months, is nothing but
an inordinate delay to pursue the remedy of a person and
without submitting any cogent reason therefore. The court has
no power to condone the same in such case...."
22. In B.S. Bajwa and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors.5, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"The undisputed facts appearing from the record are alone
sufficient to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of latches
because the grievance made by B.S. Banwa and B.D. Gupta
only in 1984 which was long after they had entered the
department in 1971-72. .............There was inordinate delay
in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone
was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to
reject the writ petition."
23. Thus, in view of the expression of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this
Court should consider delay and latches while exercising extra
ordinary jurisdiction under Art 226 of the Constitution of India. The
case at hand, as point out, no plausible reason was assigned. Thus,
1998 (2) SCC 523
SRS,J
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches,
alone. However, since right to property is involved, and said right is
protected under Art 300-A of the Constitution of India as
Constitutional right as well as human right this Court is also
considering other aspects pleaded by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
24. No doubt property sought to be purchased by the petitioner, as
seen from the endorsement, is assigned land and hence, said
property is prohibited from registration. Section 22-A (1)(a) of the
Registration Act, which prohibits registration of certain documents is
extracted hereunder:
(a) Document relating to transfer of immovable property,
alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute
of the State or Central Government.
25. Thus, there is express bar under the Registration Act to
register the document where the alienation or transfer is prohibited
under any statute of the State or Central Government. A condition,
is in fact, incorporated in DKT patta (assigned lands) that land is not
alienable and is only heritable. Section 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands
(POT) Act prohibits alienation of assigned land. Section 3(3) would
clarify that such transfer is null and void. Section 5 of the Act
prohibits registration of documents on intimation. Sec 5(2) starts with
SRS,J
non obstante clause. It reads as follows: "(2) Notwithstanding
anything in the Registration Act, 1908, no Registering Officer shall
accept for registration of any document relating to the transfer of or
creation of any interest in any assigned lands as furnished in the list
under sub-section (1). Thus, there is express bar to register the
document in case of assigned properties in both the Acts i.e. the
Registration Act as well as A.P.Assigned land (POT) Act, 1977.
26. The endorsement of Sub-Registrar would discern that list of
properties, communicated by the revenue authority, includes the
property purchased by the petitioner and hence the document
cannot be registered. Thus, the refusal endorsement of Sub-
Registrar-respondent No.5 is in accordance provisions of the Act.
27. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend
that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
maintainable and one need not file appeal or invoke civil Court
jurisdiction under Section 77 of the Registration Act or Section 9
CPC. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance upon Veena Singh (Dead) Through LR v. The
District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R) and Another6
2022 LiveLaw (SC)462
SRS,J
28. In Veena Singh's case the Sub-Registrar refused to register
sale deed basing on the statement of executant, denying execution
of the document. Against such a refusal endorsement, an appeal
was filed under Section 72 of the Registration Act. In the appeal,
since signature is admitted by the executant, the District Registrar
directed registration of document. Aggrieved by which writ petition
was filed. Learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court considered
scope of Section 35(3)(a) and other relevant provisions of the Act,
and dismissed the writ petition. Against said order, matter was
carried out to the Hon'ble Apex Court. In para No.30 of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
"In the event of a refusal by the Registrar, a suit can be filed a
party in terms of the provisions of Section 77 before a civil
court, praying for a decree directing the document to be
registered. On the other hand, an order of the Registrar
directing the registration of a document is amenable to a
challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. While
seeking a writ of certiorari, the person moving the petition
before the High Court would be entitled to establish whether
the registration has been ordered in breach of the
statutory provisions and is contrary to law. The mere
extension of the remedy available before a civil court, under
Section 9 of CPC to avoid the document or to seek a
declaration in regard to its invalidity, will not divest a person,
who complains that the order passed by Registrar for the
registration of the document was contrary to statutory
SRS,J
provisions, of the remedy which is available in the exercise of
a court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Undoubtedly, whether a writ should be entertained lies at the
discretion of the court and in a given case, the High Court may
decline to do so on the ground that disputed questions of fact
arise. However, it needs to be emphasized that in the exercise
of the writ jurisdiction, it would be open to the High Court to
determine as to whether the statutory provisions which guide
the power of the Sub-Registrar or, as the case may be, the
Registrar to order the registration of the document have been
duly fulfilled." (emphasis is mine)
29. The expression of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Veena Singh's
case would manifest that a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is maintainable, if order was passed by the
authority contrary to the statutory provisions. In fact, it was further
held that an order of Registrar, directing registration of document is
amendable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
30. Case at hand, it is not the case of the petitioner that
respondent No.5, Sub-Registrar acted contrary to the statutory
provisions and hence, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is invoked. In fact, as stated supra, pursuant to
communication qua list of prohibited properties, to the Sub-Registrar,
the Sub-Registrar declined to register the document and passed the
endorsement dated 09.09.2016. In the absence of the allegation or
SRS,J
averment that the Sub-Registrar acted contrary to the statutory
provisions, the petitioner would have availed remedy of appeal under
Section 72 of the Registration Act or further remedy by invoking Civil
Court jurisdiction, in case of refusal by Registrar.
31. It is well established proposition that remedy under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is extra-ordinary and discretionary. In
exercise of writ jurisdiction, the High Court cannot be oblivious to the
conduct of the party invoking that remedy, in view of the fact that the
party may have several remedies for the same cause of action. The
exercise of discretion to issue a writ is a matter of granting equitable
relief. It is a remedy in equity.
32. In view of the discussion made supra, in the opinion of this
Court, this writ petition is not maintainable. However, this court is not
dismissing this writ petition on that ground alone.
33. The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that
the property, which was in the list of prohibited properties, has now
become free hold and hence, the endorsement dated 09.09.2016 is
liable to be set aside. The time from which a registered document
operates need to be considered.
SRS,J
34. Section 47 of the Registration Act, which is relevant, is
extracted hereunder:
Time from which registered document operates.--A registered
document shall operate from the time which it would have
commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been
required or made, and not from the time of its registration.
35. In Kanwar Raj Singh (D) Th. Lrs. v. Gejo (D) Th. Lrs. and
Ors.7, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under at para No.6:
"6. On plain reading of Section 47, it provides that a registered
document shall operate from the time from which it would
have commenced to operate if no registration thereof was
required. Thus, when a compulsorily registerable document is
registered according to the Registration Act, it can operate
from a date before the date of its registration. The date of the
operation will depend on the nature of the transaction. If, in a
given case, a sale deed is executed and the entire agreed
consideration is paid on or before execution of sale deed,
after it is registered, it will operate from the date of its
execution. The reason is that if its registration was not
required, it would have operated from the date of its
execution." (emphasis is mine)
36. The Hon'ble Apex Court after referring to the decision of the
Constitution Bench reported in Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer8,
observed as follows:
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 4
SRS,J
"10. .... The decision of the Constitution Bench only deals
with the question of when the sale is complete; it does not
deal with the issue of the date from which the sale deed would
operate. Section 47 of the Registration Act does not deal with
the completion of the sale; it only lays down the time from
which a registered document would operate.
11. Now coming to the facts of this case, the
consideration was entirely paid on the date of the execution of
the sale deed. The Sale deed was registered with the
interpolation made about the description/area of the property
sold. The first defendant admittedly made the said
interpolation after it was executed but before it was registered.
In terms of Section 47 of the Registration Act, a registered
sale deed where entire consideration is paid would operate
from the date of its execution. Thus, the sale deed as
originally executed will operate. ..."
37. The meaning of 'Execution' was considered in Veena Singh's
case. It was observed that the word execution would mean that a
person has signed a document after fully understood it and
consented to its terms.
38. In the case at hand, as seen from the averments in the
affidavit, coupled with the document, the document was executed on
30.08.2016 and possession was also delivered to the vendee. If the
document dated 30-8-2016 is registered now, it operates from 30-8-
2016. As discussed supra, after the property is kept in free hold the
AIR 1961 sc 1747
SRS,J
present writ petition is filed. By virtue of amendment to Sec 3 i.e.
adding Sub-Section (2)(i), restriction of alienation of assignment land
was relaxed subject to certain conditions.
39. Sub-Section (2)(i) was added to Section 3 of the Assigned
Lands Act by Act 35 of 2023 w.e.f. 31.07.2023. Sub-Section 2(i) of
Section 3 is extracted herewith:
"(2)(i) No landless poor person or his/her legal heir, shall
transfer any land assigned for agricultural purpose, and no
person shall acquire any such assigned land, either by
purchase, gift, lease (except in the case of Lease to the
Andhra Pradesh Green Energy Corporation Ltd., for use as
deemed fit and including for usage of non-agriculture
purpose)", mortgage, exchange or otherwise, within a period
of twenty (20) years from the date of assignment."
40. To understand the background and scope of the amended
section one should understand the statement of objects and reasons
of Act 35 of 2023.
41. In Bhaiji v. SDO9 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"11. Reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons is
permissible for understanding the background, the antecedent
state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to
the statute, and the evil which the statute sought to remedy.
The weight of judicial authority leans in favour of the view that
(2003) 1 SCC 692
SRS,J
the Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot be utilised for
the purpose of restricting and controlling the plain meaning of
the language employed by the legislature in drafting a statute
and excluding from its operation such transactions which it
plainly covers."
42. In Utkal Contractors and Joinery (P) Ltd. v. State of
Orissa10, Hon'ble Apex Court interpreted the provisions of the
Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) Act, 1981 and
observed:
"9. ... A statute is best understood if we know the reason
for it. The reason for a statute is the safest guide to its
interpretation. The words of a statute take their colour from the
reason for it. How do we discover the reason for a statute?
There are external and internal aids. The external aids are
Statement of Objects and Reasons when the Bill is presented
to Parliament, the reports of committees which preceded the
Bill and the reports of Parliamentary Committees. Occasional
excursions into the debates of Parliament are permitted.
Internal aids are the Preamble, the scheme and the provisions
of the Act. Having discovered the reason for the statute and so
having set the sail to the wind, the interpreter may proceed
ahead. No provision in the statute and no word of the statute
may be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word
must be looked at generally before any provision or word is
attempted to be construed. The setting and the pattern are
important. It is again important to remember that Parliament
does not waste its breath unnecessarily. Just as Parliament is
(1987) 3 SCC 279
SRS,J
not expected to use unnecessary expressions, Parliament is
also not expected to express itself unnecessarily. Even as
Parliament does not use any word without meaning
something, Parliament does not legislate where no legislation
is called for. Parliament cannot be assumed to legislate for the
sake of legislation; nor can it be assumed to make pointless
legislation. Parliament does not indulge in legislation merely to
state what it is unnecessary to state or to do what is already
validly done. Parliament may not be assumed to legislate
unnecessarily."
43. Thus, it can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments
that although the Statement of Objects and Reasons contained in
the Bill leading to enactment of the particular Act cannot be made
the sole basis for construing the provisions contained therein, the
same can be referred to for understanding the background, the
antecedent state of affairs and the mischief sought to be remedied
by the statute. The Statement of Objects and Reasons can also be
looked into as an external aid for appreciating the true intent of the
legislature and/or the object sought to be achieved by enactment of
the particular Act or for judging reasonableness of the classification
made by such Act.
44. In the objects and reasons of Act 35 of 2023, it was stated that
the condition of non-alienability of assigned lands impacted the
poorest of the poor by preventing them making use of emergency
SRS,J
family needs. Said proposals were received for granting transfer
rights to the assignees of their assigned lands after lapse of a certain
period from the date of such assignment. Government constituted
committee under the Chairmanship of Minister of Revenue and
Registration and Stamps to examine issue of right to sale of
assigned lands for welfare and financial ease of the assignees. The
committee after examining the relevant Revenue laws in force in
neighbouring States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala and real
estate ground situation in the State, inter alia, recommended that the
original assignee or his or her legal heir may be permitted to alienate
the assigned land after a period of twenty years from the date of
assignment as per the procedure prescribed and without any
reference to the Government and in case, the enjoying land is
earmarked for any use other than agricultural use, in the master
plan, the assignee shall be paid on par with the current basic value
of the land by purchaser of such assigned land. Government also
considered the ratio in Land Acquisition Officer Cum Revenue
Divisional Officer, Chevella Division vs. Mekala Pandu11 case
regarding payment of market value on par with land owners. Initially
ordinance was promulgated as ordinance 9 of 2023. Later
amendment was carried out vide Act 35 of 2023.
AIR 2004 AP 250
SRS,J
45. Thus, a careful perusal of the statement of objects and
reasons, manifest that original assignee or his/her legal heir may be
permitted to alienate assigned land after a period of twenty years
from the date of assignment. The assignee or his/her legal
representatives should be in possession of the property by
31.07.2023. So, possession of assignee or legal heir on the date of
amendment is sine qua non to get the benefit. Said provision came
into force w.e.f 31.07.2023. Since the date of commencement of
amended Act is mentioned specifically it must be construed that the
amendment is prospective in nature i.e. from 31.07.2023.
46. In case, if the endorsement of Sub-registrar dated 09.09.2016
is set aside, and the document is allowed to be registered, it would
operate from the date of execution i.e. on 30.08.2016 when the
prohibition is in operation as per the Act. Whether such registration is
permissible? The answer is in negative. Up to 31.07.2023,
prohibition of assigned lands operates, and such prohibition was
lifted from 31.07.2023 subject to certain conditions. If the document,
in the case at hand is allowed to be registered, the execution of
document operates from 30.08.2016. When prohibition is in
operation, any such order of the Court would be contrary to the Act.
SRS,J
47. In unreported judgments rendered in W.P.Nos.21437 of 2023
and 4021 of 2020 relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner, the
effect of Section 47 of the Registration Act and Act 35 of 2023 were
not considered and hence, the orders will not bind this court. In the
W.P.No.2219 of 2020, pending writ petition, in view of the
development, order was passed. Hence, the order will not bind this
court.
48. In fact, during hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader
submitted that the petitioner without approaching the Sub-Registrar,
approached this Court with false contentions. The contention of
learned Assistant Government Pleader is that, no fresh list was
communicated to the Sub-Registrar enabling the Sub Registrar to
register the document and hence, the Sub-Registrar, even if
document is presented, is not in a position to register the document
falls to ground. The Commissioner and Inspector General of
Registration of Stamps, A.P., Tadepalli, issued Circular Memo
No.G1/19131/2005 dated 25.01.2024, which reads thus:
"In continuation of instructions issued through the references
cited, the following further instructions are issued while
registering lands pertaining to Assigned lands, Village Service
Inam lands, Sharatugala Patta lands and Dotted lands for
strict compliance.
SRS,J
2. If the web-land contains entries to the effect that above
mentioned lands have been made free hold/patta lands, the
registration officers shall not refuse registration of the
documents in any existing physical list of prohibited properties
available with the department.
3. Similarly registrations of these lands shall not be refused if
there is no prohibition in the physical list maintained by the
department but contra entries are shown with respect to same
Sy.No. in the web-land.
4.To sum up registration of above said categories of lands /
properties shall not be refused for registration, if:
a)The land has been made free hold/patta in web-land
b) If there is no prohibition in any of the physical list
maintained by the Department (even if there are contra entries
shown with respect to the same Sy.No. in web-land).
The reasons for the grant in such cases may be recorded in
the remarks column in the card system."
49. A perusal of the above instructions would discern that if the
web-land contains entry to the effect that the land is made free hold,
the Registering Officer shall not refuse to register the document
irrespective of any entry contra in any existing physical list. In fact,
while summing up, it was mentioned that if the land is made free
hold patta in web-land, the Sub-Registrar can entertain registration.
The circular instructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector
SRS,J
General of Stamps and Registration binds the Registrars and Sub-
Registars.
13.02.2024 from official website would disclose that land of an extent
of Ac.0-95 cents in survey No.178/2 of Koduru Village, Chilamathur
Mandal is made free hold from the year, 2023.
51. Since the land of an extent of Ac.0-95 cts in 178/2 of Koduru
Village is made free hold, the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar
dated 09.09.2016 is of no consequence. The Sub-Registrar cannot
rely upon such an endorsement, if petitioner presents a fresh
document.
52. In view of the above discussion, there are no merits in the writ
petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. However,
liberty is given to the petitioner to present fresh document for
registration, in respect of the subject property, before respondent
No.5 subject to compliance of provisions of Indian Stamp Act and
Registration Act. If such a document is presented, the respondent
No.5 shall receive and process, strictly in accordance with law.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand dismissed.
SRS,J
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date : 01.05.2024
ikn
SRS,J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date : 01.05.2024
ikn
