Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Darapaneni Nanda Kishore vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 September, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
NJS, J
WPs_33791 & 33804_2015
APHC010405982023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3209]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE TWELTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION N
No: 33791 & 33804 of 2015
W.P.No.33791 of 2015
Between:
Darapaneni Nanda Kishore ...PETITIONER
AND
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Revenue Department & Others
Others. .......RESPONDENTS
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. Mr.P.V.Vidya Sagar
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
G.P. for Revenue
2. G.P. for Assignment
The Court made the following Common Order:
The issue in these writ petitions is similar and hence the same are
disposed of by a common order.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent-
respondent
authorities in refusing to register the Sale Deeds presented by them on
NJS, J
WPs_33791 & 33804_2015
23.12.2013 and numbered as P.No.337/2013 and P.No.335/2013 is illegal,
unjust and contrary to Section 6 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of
Transfers) Act, 1977.
3. As per the averments made in the affidavits, the petitioners' vendor
purchased an extent of Ac.5.63 cents in S.No.655/3 of Bandlapai Village in an
auction conducted by Punganur Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank,
Punganur. Originally, the said land was assigned in favour of one Chakala
Thimmanna, who borrowed a loan from the said bank by mortgaging the
above extent of land as security. He committed default in repaying the loan
and the bank obtained a decree against him, brought the assigned land for
sale in E.P.No.38/85-86. In the auction, the sale was confirmed in favour of
the petitioners' vendor and a Sale Certificate was issued to him on
31.03.1987. Out of the said extent of Ac.5.63 cents, an extent of Ac.0.70 cents
was sold under a Sale Deed dated 04.12.2013 in favour of the petitioner in
W.P.No.33804 of 2015 and the balance extent of Ac.4.93 cents was sold
under a separate Sale Deed dated 04.12.2013 in favour of the petitioner in
W.P.No.33791 of 2015. When the said Sale Deeds were presented for
registration on 23.12.2013, the 6th respondent numbered them as
P.Nos.335/2013 and 337/2013 and thereafter by a Separate Order dated
10.03.2015 refused to register the Sale Deeds on the premise that the said
land is assigned land, that in terms of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, it's
registration is prohibited. The petitioners preferred separate appeals against
NJS, J
WPs_33791 & 33804_2015
the said Orders dated 10.03.2015 before the 5 th respondent, who in turn vide
separate orders dated 25.05.2015 dismissed the same.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Assistant
Government Pleader representing the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the
orders of the respondent authorities refusing to register the Sale Deeds in
respect of the subject matter lands are not sustainable in Law. He submits that
it is not in dispute that the lands in question were purchased by the petitioners'
vendor in a public auction conducted by a Cooperative Bank and the
petitioners' vendor had acquired a valid right and title in respect of the same.
He contends that once there is a sale of the land by way of an auction
conducted by a Cooperative Bank, the property ceased to be the property of
the State, lose its character as assigned land and the auction purchaser gets
valid title over the property. He submits that being the lawful owner of the
above extent of Ac.5.63 cents, the petitioners' vendor sold the same and the
respondent No.6 instead of registering the Sale Deed, erroneously passed an
order of rejection and without appreciating the correct legal position, much
less, the contentions raised by the petitioners, the 5th respondent confirmed
the order of the 6th respondent. Be that as it may. The learned counsel relying
on the judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District v. K.Guravaiah1
(2009) 2 ALD 250 (DB)
NJS, J
WPs_33791 & 33804_2015
as also other decisions reported in N.Raja Reddy & Others v. Sub-Registrar,
Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District2, Order dated 11.08.2015 in W.P.No.12643 of
2011 and Order dated 06.04.2022 in W.P.No.6869 of 2022 contends that in
the light of the settled legal position, the orders passed by the respondents 5
and 6 are not sustainable in Law and seeks a direction to the 6 th respondent to
register the Sale Deeds in respect of the lands purchased by the petitioners.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, made
submissions to impress upon this Court that the respondents 6 and 5 were
justified in refusing to register the subject matter land as the same was
prohibited in terms of Section 22-A of the Registration Act. He, however, had
not disputed the legal position as laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench in
K.Guravaiah's case referred to supra.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the
material on record.
8. Before dealing with the issue on hand, it may be pertinent to mention
that the respondents have not filed counter-affidavits and thus there is no
rebuttal to the factual aspects set out in the affidavit. So far as the legal aspect
is concerned, the same is no longer 'res integra'.
9. In K.Guravaiah's case, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that "when the
original assignee mortgaged the land assigned to him in favour of a Bank or a
financial institution or cooperative society under A.P.Cooperative Societies
2007 (5) ALD 845
NJS, J
WPs_33791 & 33804_2015
Act, 1964 and if the money is not paid, the consequences provided in the
Transfer of Property Act, 1982 would naturally follow; that it is permissible to
put the said land to public auction under the said Act and recover the land
dues to the financial institution by way of sale and such a sale is valid in law. It
is also held that as per Section 2(1) of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of
Transfers) Act, 1977, mortgage in favour of a Bank or a cooperative Society
does not amount to alienation."
10. Following the said Division Bench decision, the learned Judge in
W.P.No.15607 of 2021 vide Order dated 04.08.2021 opined in categorical
terms that "when the property was sold in execution of decree by the Co-
operative Society or Bank, the property is exempted from the application of
provisions of Act IX of 1977 and the sale of assigned land by Registration of
Co-operative Societies is saved."
11. In fact, the view taken in K.Guravaiah's case was reiterated by another
Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1920 of 2017 dated 18.12.2017.
12. The other decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners
is in tow with the legal position as laid down in K.Guravaiah's case.
Therefore the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner
merits acceptance.
13. In such view of the matter, the orders passed by the respondent No.6
as confirmed by the respondent No.5 refusing to register the Sale Deeds in
respect of the subject matter lands are not sustainable.
NJS, J
WPs_33791 & 33804_2015
14. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the 6th
respondent to register the Sale Deeds in respect of the subject matter lands, if
the same or otherwise in compliance with the provisions of the Registration
Act and the Stamps Act. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all
pending applications shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Dated 12.09.2024
BLV
NJS, J
WPs_33791 & 33804_2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION Nos: 33791 & 33804 of 2015
Date: 12.09.2024
BLV
