Telangana High Court
Bhel Employees Model Mutually ... vs State Of Telangana on 7 April, 2021
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao, T.Vinod Kumar
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICDATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA : HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION NO.15041 OF 2019
BHEL EMPLOYEES MODEL MUTUALLY
AIDED CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING
SOCIETY LTD. ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Telangana rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat
Buildings, Hyderabad, Telangana State
and others ... Respondents
DATE OF THE JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 07.04.2021
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the judgment?
___________________________
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
____________________
T.VINOD KUMAR, J
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::2::
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTSICE T.VINOD KUMAR
+ WRIT PETITION NO.15041 OF 2019
% DATED 07th APRIL, 2021
# BHEL EMPLOYEES MODEL MUTUALLY
AIDED CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING
SOCIETY LTD. ... Petitioner
Vs.
$ State of Telangana rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat
Buildings, Hyderabad, Telangana State
and others ... Respondents
<Gist:
>Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri R.N.Hemendranath
Reddy
^Counsel for Respondents 1 to 6 : Govt. Pleader for Revenue
^Counsel for Respondent no.7 : Sri P. Harinath Reddy
^Counsel for Respondent no.8 : Sri C. Raghu
^Counsel for Respondent no.9 : Sri B. Vivekananda
? CASES REFERRED:
1. 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB)
2. A.P. State Electricity Board Employees Union v. Joint Collector,
Chittoor.... 2008 (1) ALD 29
3. Kulwant Singh Chatwal and others v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy
and others .... 2009 (6) ALD 68
4. (2018) 16 SCC 786, at page 790
5. AIR 1968 SC 1413
6. (2012) 8 S.C.C. 148 Para no.12
7. 2013 (3) A.L.T. 500
8. AIR 2017 A.P. 713
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::3::
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.15041 OF 2019
O R D E R:
(Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
The background facts
The petitioner is a Co-operative House Building Society registered
on 05.06.2012 under the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative
Societies Act, 1995. It has about 1200 Members. It was constituted for
the welfare of the employees of Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited
(BHEL), Hyderabad and was formed to provide individual housing
facilities to all its members by developing a housing scheme for its
members.
2. M/s. SSPDL Limited is a Company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and owns land in Osmannagar
Village and Kollur Village of Ramachandrapuram Mandal of Medak
District.
3. The petitioner society approached M/s. SSPDL and expressed
their intention to provide housing units for the benefits of its members
and requested SSPDL to develop the project by constructing individual
houses/homes and convey the same to its members. The petitioner then
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dt.05.09.2004 with M/s.
SSPDL under which each member of the petitioner society has to
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::4::
contribute about Rs.24,95,000/- per home/house totaling Rs.299.00
Crores for 1200 homes.
4. The petitioner society also entered into a sale agreement
dt.31.10.2014 with M/s. SSPDL in respect of the said plots admeasuring
180 sq. yards each in the overall layout admeasuring Ac.88.26 gts. in
Sy.No.30/Part of Osmannagar Village and in Sy.No.191/Part of Kollur
Village within specific boundaries.
5. On 31.10.2014, petitioner society also entered into a construction
agreement with M/s. SSPDL for the 1200 units at a cost of Rs.155.40
Crores.
6. According to the petitioner, M/s. SSPDL and others were absolute
owners and possessors of Ac.93.04 gts. situated in Sy.No.30/Part,
Osmannagar Village and in Sy.No.191/Part of Kollur Village of
Ramachandrapuram Mandal in the Sangareddy District having
purchased it under several registered sale deeds.
7. According to the petitioner, the lands in the above mentioned
survey numbers were originally assigned in favour of several Ex-
Servicemen in 1972 and thereafter those Ex-Servicemen/assignees duly
transferred/sold the said lands to various persons/companies under
various registered sale deeds as they were entitled to alienate the said
assigned lands after expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment as
per the policy of the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::5::
contained in G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department, dt.30.04.1963 and
G.O.Ms.No.1117, Revenue (Assignment) Department, dt.11.11.1993.
8. According to the petitioner, on 05.09.2012 it paid Rs.24.00 Crores
to the developer as initial payment and the developer M/s SSPDL
applied on 03.04.2013 for a layout to the Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority (for short "HMDA") under Sections 19 and 20
of the HMDA Act, 2008 for undertaking construction of the proposed
group houses in the above property.
9. Pursuant to the said application of the developer, the HMDA
addressed a letter dt.20.12.2013 to the then District Collector of Medak
District seeking instructions and clearance from revenue authorities for
issuance of the layout permission.
letter dt.25.01.2014 of Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal
10. After due enquiry, the then Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal
( 4th respondent), through letter dt.25.01.2014 sent a detailed report to
the District Collector, Medak stating that:
(i) on verification of the revenue records it is found that some of the
ex-servicemen applied for allotment of Government land under ex-
servicemen quota;
(ii) and thereafter some of the ex-servicemen alienated their assigned
lands to various persons through registered sale deeds;
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::6::
(iii) that mutation orders were also sanctioned in favour of purchasers
and implemented in the Revenue records;
(iv) that the original assignees have sold their lands after completion
of 20 years during 1992 to 2006;
(v) that they were free to sell their assigned lands after a period of 10
yrs as per G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.13.04.1963 and G.O.Ms.No.1117
dt.11.11.1993; and
(vi) that the physical possession of schedule property is with the
purchasers/applicants.
The release of tentative layout by HMDA on 12.2.2014
11. Basing on the said report submitted by the 4th respondent, the 2nd
respondent through Lr.No.E1/19/2014 dt.12.02.2014 has informed
HMDA that the title of the land covering only an extent ofAc.5.09 gts in
Sy. No.30/p of Osmannagar Village and Sy.No.191/p of Kollur village
of Ramachandrapuram Mandal is under dispute and covered under
litigation, and that title regarding remaining balance land of Ac.88.26
gts. in Sy. No. 30/p and 191/p is dispute free and the land is under
possession of purchasers.
12. Thereafter, the HMDA issued proceedings approving draft layout
and forwarded it to the Executive Authorities of Osmannagar Gram
Panchayat and Kollur Gram Panchayat for taking necessary action as per
powers delegated to such Local Bodies.
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::7::
13. Pursuant to the above proceeding, the Panchayat Secretary of
Kollur Gram Panchayat and the Panchayat Secretary of Osmannagar
Gram Panchayat issued proceedings on 12.12.2014 releasing draft layout
building permission subject to certain conditions.
The sale deed dt.4.2.2015 in petitioner's favour
14. Subsequently, the purchasers from the Ex-Servicemen sold land to
M/s SSPDL and others , and finally the petitioner purchased an extent of
2,09,211.72 sq. yds. (Ac.15.25 gts) consisting of 1155 plots in the above
two villages for a total consideration of Rs.139,47,45,497/- under
registered sale deed dt.04.02.2015 (Doc.No.4367 of 2015) by paying
stamp duty of Rs.8.5 Crores apart from registration charges.
15. The petitioner contends that the petitioner society, having become
the absolute owner and possessor of the above property, its members
obtained loans from banks and financial institutions and contributed
Rs.323.00 Crores allegedly to the developer for construction of houses.
According to the petitioner, the developer also undertook construction of
multiple housing units in the above land.
16. At that stage, the 7th respondent filed a complaint to the HMDA
claiming right over Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.191/30 of Kollur Village.
17. On the basis of the said complaint, the HMDA issued proceedings
No.101299/LO/PLG/HMDA/2013 dt.29.08.2015 unilaterally canceling
its proceedings dt.03.07.2014 releasing draft layout which was addressed
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::8::
to the Executive Authorities of Osmannagar Gram Panchayat and Kollur
Gram Panchayat.
order dt.22.09.2017 in W.P.No.41187 of 2015 and W.P.No.34940 of 2015
18. The petitioner questioned the same by filing W.P.No.41187 of
2015 and the developer SSPDL also filed W.P.No.34940 of 2015
challenging the above proceedings of the HMDA.
19. A learned Single Judge of this Court by order dt.22.09.2017 in
W.P.No.34940 of 2015 and W.P.No.41187 of 2015 set aside the
proceedings dt.29.08.2015 issued by the HMDA unilaterally canceling
the draft layout permission etc. This Court held that the 1st respondent
cannot decide questions of title to the property, that the Commissioner of
HMDA had no such jurisdiction to decide the same, and that the said
order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice without
issuing a notice to the petitioner and to the developer. The Court referred
to O.S.No.344 of 2012 filed by the 7th respondent against the petitioner
society for perpetual injunction and held that the parties will have to
establish their right, title and possession before the Civil Court.
20. According to the petitioner, the developer M/S SSPDL then
completed construction of the houses and handed them over to the
petitioner society, and the petitioner society allotted the same to its
members and even executed conveyance deeds conveying right and title
to individual members.
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::9::
Endorsements dt.17.06.2019 of respondent no.6 refusing to register conveyances
quoting the list communicated by the 2nd respondent under Sec.22A of the
Registration Act,1908
21. When two such conveyance deeds were presented on 22.05.2019
before the Joint Sub-Registrar-II, RO (OB), Sangareddy, Sangareddy
District, Telangana State (6th respondent), he rejected registration of the
same vide separate Endorsements dt.17.06.2019 stating that the land in
Sy.No.30/1, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 22 other survey numbers are
included/found in the list of prohibitory properties issued under Section
22A of the Registration Act, 1908 by the District Collector, Sangareddy
District (2nd respondent) vide Letter No.D1/1221/16 dt.13.02.2017.
Letter No.D1/1221/16 dt.13.02.2017 of 2nd respondent
22. The said letter dt.13.02.2017 is addressed by the 2nd respondent to
the District Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department of
Sangareddy District and merely states that the former had returned
Section 22A Lists communicated by the 2nd respondent earlier, that there
is a judgment in W.A.Nos.343 of 2015, 232 of 2012 and 352 of 2013
dt.23.12.2015 and 29.01.2016 and in view of the same, the Lists are once
again communicated to the District Registrar for taking necessary action.
23. The above judgment in W.A.Nos.343 of 2015, 232 of 2012 and
352 of 2013 dt.23.12.2015 and 29.01.2016 was reported in Vinjamuri
Rajagopala Chary and others v. Principal Secretary, Revenue
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::10::
Department, Hyderabad and others1. We shall discuss about this
decision in the later part of the judgment.
Order dt.11.7.2019 of the 5th respondent
24. Questioning the Endorsement dt.22.05.2019 of the 6th respondent
refusing to register the two conveyances, the individual members of the
society filed two statutory appeals under Section 71 of the registration
Act,1908 before the District Registrar, Sangareddy (5th respondent) who
also dismissed it on 11.07.2019 simply stating that the Sy. Nos. covered
by plots under transfer are prohibited properties under Section 22A of
the Registration Act, 1908 as listed by the District Collector, Sangareddy
in his letter dt.13.02.2017 and the action of the 6th respondent refusing
registration of the document was upheld.
Contentions of petitioner
25. According to the petitioner, it discovered that in the list issued by
the 2nd respondent on 13.02.2017 prohibiting registration under Section
22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, the lands purchased by the
petitioner society are mentioned ; and in the tabular column in the
Appendix, under 'Col.10', with heading 'Act under prohibited', it was
mentioned 'Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer)
Act, 1977'.
2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB)
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::11::
26. According to the petitioner, though the subject lands purchased by
the society were originally assigned to Ex-Servicemen, the Ex-
Servicemen were entitled to transfer the same after expiry of 10 years
from the date of assignment; and they had sold their assigned land after
almost 20 years from the date of assignment; and so Andhra Pradesh
Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 is not at all
attracted, and consequently the subject lands cannot be put in the
prohibitory list quoting Section 22A(1)(a) of the Act.
The stand of respondents 1 to 6 and it's consideration by the Court:
27. Before we refer to the contentions of the 2nd respondent and
consider the same, we shall first note Section 22-A (as amended in the
State of Telangana) in so far as it is relevant for our purpose. It states:
"22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain documents.-(1) The
following classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration,
namely:
(a) documents relating to transfer of immoveable property, the
alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the
State or Central Government;
(b) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale,
agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of immoveable
property owned by the State or Central Government, executed by
persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so;
(c) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale,
agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten) 10 years in
respect of immoveable property, owned by Religious and Charitable
Endowments falling under the purview of the Telangana Charitable
and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or by
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::12::
Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995 executed by persons other
than those statutorily empowered to do so;
(d) agricultural or urban lands declared as surplus under the
Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973
or the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976;
(e) any document or class of documents pertaining to the properties
the State Government may, by notification prohibit the registration in
which avowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments,
Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, Religious and Charitable
Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal, Revenue Courts and
Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others which are likely to adversely
affect those interests.
(2) For the purpose of clause (e) of sub-section (1), the State
Government shall publish a notification after obtaining reasons for and
full description of properties furnished by the District Collectors
concerned in the manner as may be prescribed.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering
officer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification
issued under clause (e) of sub-section (1).
(4) The State Government either suo motu or on an application by any
person or for giving effect to the final orders of the High Court of
Telangana or Supreme Court of India may proceed to de-notify, either
in full or in part, the notification issued under sub-section (2)."
28. Thus under this provision there is power to prohibit registration of
certain classes of documents enumerated therein. In particular, there is
requirement of a Notification being published by the State Government
after obtaining details from District Collectors in respect of document
mentioned in Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, though we
are not concerned in this case with the said category.
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::13::
29. We are concerned with Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section
22-A i.e., documents relating to transfer of immovable property, the
alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the
State or Central Government.
30. According to the stand of the respondents 1 to 6, the lands claimed
by the petitioner and M/s. SSPDL are assigned lands which are
prohibited from alienation under Sec.3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands
(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The said provision states:
"3. Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands:-
(1) Where before or after the commencement of this Act any land
has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for
purpose of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding to
the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the
deed to transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall not
be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred,
and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in
any person acquiring the land by such transfer.
(2) No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land, and
no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift,
lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise.
(3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the
provision of sub-section (1) of sub-section (2) [or subsection (2-A)]
shall be deemed to be null and void...."
31. Under the said statute, the term "assigned land" is defined in
Section 2(1) as under:
""assigned lands" means lands assigned by the Government to the
landless poor persons under the Rules for the time being in force,
subject to the condition of non-alienation and includes lands allotted
or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::14::
time being in force relating to land ceiling; and the word "assigned"
shall be construed accordingly."
We are not concerned with the explanation given thereunder in the
instant case.
32. Thus only for lands which are assigned to landless poor which
contain a condition of non-alienation, the prohibition contained in
Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,
1971, is attracted2.
33. As far as lands assigned to Ex-Servicemen are concerned, initially
the then State of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms.No.743
dt.30.04.1963 providing for assignment of land to Ex-Servicemen with a
condition that the land assigned should not be sold or otherwise alienated
for a period of 10 years and the extent permitted for assignment was
Ac.2.50 (wet) or Ac.5.00 (dry).
34. This was modified in G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993 and the
Ex-Servicemen were permitted to sell away their assigned lands after a
period of 10 years freely without even seeking permission of the
Government.
35. The scheme of assignment of land to Ex-Servicemen was intended
by the State to work as an incentive for persons who want to join the
Army, and also as a way to pay gratitude to those who risked their lives
A.P. State Electricity Board Employees Union v. Joint Collector, Chittoor.... 2008 (1) ALD 29
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::15::
in defending the country against heavy odds being away from their
families during the better part of their life3.
36. But if the condition of non-alienation is for a limited period of
time, as in the case of Ex-Servicemen, i.e. only for 10 years from the
date of assignment, and if the transfer is made by the Ex-Serviceman
after the said period, such land cannot be prohibited from transfer and
the above statute has no application.
37. It is the contention of the petitioner that initially the lands claimed
by it had been assigned to Ex-Servicemen who had alienated the same
after completion of 10 years from the date of assignment and that there
were several transfers before the petitioner acquired title to the land.
According to the petitioner, there is no condition in force prohibiting
alienation after the expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment to
Ex-Servicemen, and consequently the land purchased by the petitioner
cannot fall in Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 22-A.
The decision of the Full Bench in Vinjamuri Rajagopalachary and others
( 1 supra)
38. We may point out that Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908
as amended in the State of Telangana fell for consideration in
Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others (1 supra). In the said
judgment, the Full Bench formulated two questions:
Kulwant Singh Chatwal and others v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy and others .... 2009 (6) ALD 68
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::16::
"(a) What are the prerequisites that are to be satisfied for applying
any one or more of clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A(1) of the
Registration Act to any document dealing with alienation or transfer
by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease, etc. in
respect of immovable property presented for registration?
"(b) Under what circumstances, the act of the Registering Authority
concerned (District Registrar or Sub-Registrar) in refusing from
registration of the aforementioned document/s by applying any one or
more of the prohibitory clauses (a) to (e) under Section 22-A(1) of the
Registration Act can be said to be justified?
39. The Full Bench then answered the said questions in the following
manner:
"(i) The authorities mentioned in the guidelines, which are
obliged to prepare lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d), to
be sent to the Registering Authorities under the provisions of the
Registration Act, shall clearly indicate the relevant clause under
which each property is classified.
(ii) Insofar as clause (a) is concerned, the District Collectors
concerned shall also indicate the statute under which a transaction
and its registration is prohibited. Further in respect of the properties
covered under clause (b), they shall clearly indicate which of the
Governments own the property.
(iii) Insofar as Paras (3) and (4) in the Guidelines, covering
properties under clauses (c) and (d) are concerned, the authorities
contemplated therein shall also forward to the Registering
Authorities, along with lists, the extracts of registers/gazette if the
property is covered by either endowment or wakf, and
declarations/orders made under the provisions of the Ceiling Acts if
the property is covered under clause (d).
(iv) The authorities forwarding the lists of properties/lands to the
Registering Authority shall also upload the same to the website of
both the Governments, namely, igrs.ap.gov.in of the State of Andhra
Pradesh and registration.telangana.gov.in of the State of Telangana.
If there is any change in the website, the State Governments shall
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::17::
indicate the same to all concerned, may be by issuing a press note or
an advertisement in prominent daily newspapers.
(v) No notification, contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 22-
A, is necessary with respect to the properties falling under clauses (a)
to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A.
(vi) The properties covered under clause (e) of Section 22-A shall
be notified in the Official Gazette of the State Governments and shall
be forwarded, along with the list of properties, and a copy of the
relevant notification/gazette, to the Registering Authorities concerned
under the provisions of the Registration Act and shall also place the
said notification/gazette on the aforementioned websites of both the
State Governments. The Registering Authorities shall make available
a copy of the Notification/Gazette on an application made by an
aggrieved party.
(vii) The Registering Authorities would be justified in refusing
registration of documents in respect of the properties covered by
clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A provided the
authorities contemplated under the Guidelines, as aforementioned,
have communicated the lists of properties prohibited under these
clauses.
(viii) The authorities concerned, which are obliged to furnish the
lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of
Section 22-A, and the Registering Officers concerned shall follow the
Guidelines scrupulously.
(ix) It is open to the parties to a document, if the relevant
property/land finds place in the list of properties covered by clauses
(a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, to apply for its deletion
from the list or modification thereof, to the authorities concerned as
provided for in the Guidelines. The authorities concerned are obliged
to consider the request in proper perspective and pass appropriate
order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the application and
make its copy available to the party concerned.
(x) The redressal mechanism under Section 22-A(4) shall be
before the Committees to be constituted by respective State
Governments as directed in para 35.1 above. The State Governments
shall constitute such committees within eight weeks from the date of
pronouncement of this judgment.
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::18::
(xi) Apart from the redressal mechanism, it is also open to an
aggrieved person to approach appropriate forum including civil
court for either seeking appropriate declaration or deletion of his
property/land from the list of prohibited properties or for any other
appropriate relief.
(xii) The directions issued by learned Single Judges in six
judgments2 referred to above or any other judgments dealing with
the provisions of Section 22-A, if are inconsistent with the
observations made or directions issued in this judgment, it is made
clear that the observations made and directions issued in this
judgment shall prevail and would be binding on the parties including
the Registering Authorities under the Registration Act or government
officials or the officials under the Endowments Act, Wakf Act and
Ceiling Acts.
(xiii) If the party concerned seeks extracts of the
list/register/gazette of properties covered by clauses (a) to (e) of
Section 22-A(1), received by the Registering Officer on the basis of
which he refused registration, it shall be furnished within 10 days
from the date of an application made by the aggrieved party.
(xiv) Registering Officer shall not act and refuse registration of a
document in respect of any property furnished to him directly by any
authority/officer other than the officers/authorities mentioned in the
Guidelines.
(xv) Mere registration of a document shall not confer title on the
vendee/alienee, if the property is otherwise covered by clauses (a) to
(e), but did not find place in the lists furnished by the authorities
concerned to the Registering Officers. In such cases, the only remedy
available to the authorities under clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1)
of Section 22-A is to approach appropriate forums for appropriate
relief."
5. After issuing the above directions, the matters have been
remitted to the Bench concerned for considering other issues
including the validity of Section 22-A of the Act."
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::19::
The Supreme court decision in Siri Nivasam Mutual Aided House Building
Society
40. The above judgment of the Full Bench of the Hyderabad High
Court was challenged in the Supreme Court in Siri Nivasam Mutual
Aided House Building Society Ltd. v. State of A.P.4
41. The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the High Court
holding that the main issue relating to the vires of Section 22A of the
Registration Act, 1908 is pending before the High Court by giving
certain directions as under, making it clear that the impugned order of
the Full Bench shall not stand in its way. It said:
"6. The learned counsel for the State points out that the main issue
pending before the High Court is the vires of Section 22-A of the Act.
All the contentions now sought to be raised by the appellants are, in
fact, the subject-matter of the challenge before the High Court.
However, we find that some of the appellants before this Court are not
parties before the High Court. Since the main issue is pending before
the High Court, we deem it appropriate to remit these matters to the
High Court. Those persons who are parties before this Court, but not
parties to the pending writ petitions in the High Court, may get
themselves impleaded by way of appropriate application(s) for
impleadment/intervention, etc., or may even file fresh writ petitions.
7. We note that in all these appeals, registration has been permitted
making it subject to the result of the appeals with a further condition
that no further registration shall take place without permission from the
Court. It is ordered that the registration already permitted by this Court
shall be treated as a provisional registration subject to the result of the
writ petitions now pending before the High Court. We make it clear that
merely because a provisional registration has been permitted, the
parties shall not claim any additional equity. We further make it clear
that without express permission from the High Court, there shall be no
(2018) 16 SCC 786, at page 790
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::20::
further transfer. In order to avoid further difficulty to the similarly
situated people, we make it clear that it will be open to them to
approach the High Court and seek appropriate and similar interim
orders regarding transfers during the pendency of the writ petitions.
8. The learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the same mechanism
for redressal under Section 22-A(1)(e) may be made applicable as far
as the grievance in respect of Sections 22-A(1)(a) to (d) is concerned. It
is pointed out that even in respect of the orders which have otherwise
become final, they would be relegated to the same authority and will be
subject to further revision/appeal, etc. This is also a matter to be
considered by the High Court when the writ petitions are finally heard.
Therefore, we permit the parties to raise this contention also before the
Bench concerned while considering the vires of the section, in order to
reach a workable solution. The Court may consider the issue on its own
merit and the impugned order shall not stand in that way.
9. We further make it clear that we have not otherwise considered the
matter on merits. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of."
(emphasis supplied)
42. Thus, the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Siri
Nivasam Mutual Aided House Building Society Ltd. (2 supra) is that
the Full Bench order in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others (1
supra) came to be set aside, and the matters were all remitted to the High
Court with the above directions. Thus the ratio of the said decision has
been wiped out by the order of the Supreme Court.
Consideration of stand of respondents 1 to 6
43. We shall now deal with the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents 1 to 6 through the District Collector, Sangareddy (2nd
respondent).
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::21::
44. In para-3 of the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector,
Sangareddy (2nd respondent), he admitted that an extent of Acs.195.00
gts. in Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar Village and an extent of Ac. 298.05 gts.
of land in Sy.No.191 of Kollur Village were originally classified as
"Mahasura" lands which allegedly means 'forest lands'; and out of the
said extent, Acs.143.39 gts. in Sy.No.191 of Kollur village and
Acs.93.01 gts. in Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar village, totaling to
Acs.237.00 gts. was assigned to 79 persons in 1972-73 onwards and that
their names were also mutated in revenue records.
45. Having said so, it is then stated that the records relating to the
individual assignees are "not available".
46. What the 2nd respondent means by the words "not available" is not
explained and is deliberately left vague.
47. Whether the records of assignment are misplaced or lost or
destroyed, is not specified. How the records became "not available" is
not explained. Why high officials such as the Principal Secretary,
Revenue, Govt. of Telangana ( 1st respondent) and the District Collector,
Sanga Reddy ( 2nd respondent) cannot have access to the said record
should be explained to this Court.
48. The District Collector, being the Head of the Revenue Department
of the District, is the custodian of the revenue records including those
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::22::
relating assignment of lands. The District Collector cannot be permitted
to suppress the said record by stating that they are not available.
If the record had got misplaced, what steps have been taken by the
District Collector to trace the said record or initiate appropriate
disciplinary action against the officials responsible for non-availability
of the records, is also not spoken to by the District Collector.
49. In Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar vs. Mohamed Haji Latif and
others5, the Supreme Court declared that even if the burden of proof
does not lie on a party, the Court may draw an adverse inference against
him if he withholds important documents in his possession which can
throw light on the facts at issue; that it is not in its opinion, a sound
practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold
from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which
could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the
abstract doctrine of onus of proof. This principle was reiterated in
Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin6.
The State, as custodian of the records cannot thus be permitted to
take stand that the "records are not available" without saying whether
they are mis-placed, lost or destroyed and seek to put the subsequent
purchasers like the petitioners and M/s.SSPDL to disadvantage.
AIR 1968 SC 1413
(2012) 8 S.C.C. 148 Para no.12
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::23::
50. It is then stated in para 3 of the counter affidavit by District
Collector that these assignments were made as per terms and conditions
laid down in G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue, dated 25.07.1958 and that the
land assigned under the said policy is only heritable, but not alienable.
If the records relating to the individual assignments are "not
available", the respondents should explain on what basis this assertion
that those assignments were made as per G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue,
dated 25.07.1958, and were only heritable, but not alienable, is being
made. No such explanation is forthcoming from the respondents.
51. It is next stated by the District Collector in the counter affidavit
that "most of the assignees of the above said lands, taking advantage of
the assignments made in the same survey number to the genuine Ex-
Servicemen and political sufferers, disposed the property in favour of
third parties, claiming the assignments were made under the Ex-
Servicemen quota relying on relaxations granted to such category of
assignees under G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 and G.O.Ms.No.1117
dt.11.11.1993".
Again we wish to state that no basis for the above statement is
forthcoming and in the absence of available records, we are of the
opinion that such an assertion by the District Collector has no value.
52. The District Collector further stated that when an adverse news
item was published in Andhra Jyothi Daily Newspaper dt. 15.07.2014,
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::24::
his predecessor had called for a report from the office of the Tahsildar
regarding nature of the land and its classification and assignment
particulars, and that the then Tahsildar vide letter No.B/5791/2012 had
submitted a detailed report.
Deliberately, the date of Tahsildar's letter is omitted to be
mentioned in the counter affidavit.
The said letter addressed by the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram
Mandal to the District Collector, Medak is filed at page-10 along with
the counter affidavit filed by him and it bears the date "25.01.2014".
Since the date of said letter is prior to the date of newspaper
article i.e. 15.07.2014, the District Collector is not correct in stating that
the Tahsildar had sent the said repot after the Newspaper item was
published.
53. In para-3 of the counter affidavit, it is then stated by the District
Collector that the Tahsildar in his letter had stated that the assigned lands
were purchased under agreement of sale; that several individuals also
purchased the property and M/s.SSPDL had purchased Acs.21.37 gts. in
Sy.No.191 of Kollur village and in Sy.No.30 of Osmanagar village
through registered sale deeds, and that mutation was also sanctioned for
extent of Acs.119.18 gts. under A.P. Record of Rights in land and
Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::25::
In fact the letter No.B/55791/2012 dt.25.04.2014 of the Tahsildar,
Ramachandrapuram Mandal states that, on verification of records, it is
found that some of the Ex-servicemen persons, who served the Nation,
had applied for allotment of Government land in their favour under Ex-
servicemen quota and thereafter, during 1992-2006 some of the Ex-
servicemen persons alienated their assigned lands to various person
through registered sale deeds and mutation orders were also sanctioned
in favour of the purchasers and implemented in revenue records. It is
further mentioned that the land was assigned to Ex-servicemen in the
year 1972 and the sales were took place from 1992-2006 i.e. after
completion of 20 years from the date of assignment; thereafter, the
alienation transactions took place against the lands are not contravened
to the provisions in vogue by the time and conditions of assignment have
been met. It is also stated that as per the revenue records and physical
possession, M/s.SSPDL and others are in possession of the land in
Sy.No.191 of Kollur village and Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar Village.
The above contents are not referred to in para 3 of the counter
affidavit and an edited version thereof only is mentioned.
54. Also, when the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal in his
report dt.25.01.2014 sent to the District Collector, Medak specifically
asserted, on verification of the record, that the land was assigned to Ex-
servicemen in the year 1972 and the sales were took place from 1992-
2006 i.e. after completion of 20 years from the date of assignment, and
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::26::
that the alienation transactions which took place against the lands are not
in contravention to the provisions in vogue by the time, and conditions
of assignment have been met, the District Collector deliberately omits to
state in the counter affidavit that the land claimed by the petitioner was
originally assigned to Ex-Servicemen.
55. It is clear that the District Collector, without verification of any
record, since such a record is not available, is trying to mislead the Court
and give an impression that the predecessors-in-title of petitioner are not
Ex-Servicemen (who can alienate after 10 years without Government
permission), but ordinary landless poor assignees (who cannot alienate).
56. Moreover, when the records relating to assignment were available
by 25.01.2014 to the Tahisldar ( when he sent the said report to the
District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy), how the said records became
unavailable by the time the 2nd respondent filed the counter affidavit on
15.02.2021, is not explained.
57. In para-4 of the counter affidavit, the District Collector stated that
certain complaints were received by the District Administration against
the irregular mutations and transfers of the assigned lands in favour of
individuals and Companies and that acting on the same, the Joint
Collector conducted enquiry against certain individual assignees and
others and issued orders resuming the lands vide proceedings
No.E1/1070/2016, dated 10.10.2016, Proceedings No.F3/5216/2011 and
F3/87(Assignment)/2007, dated 05.02.2015 and Proceedings
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::27::
No.E1/2662/2014, dated 24.04.2015. It is then stated that aggrieved by
the said proceedings, the assignees and their successors in interest filed
writ petitions and the same were pending for adjudication.
The District Collector has not chosen to file any of these orders
and also did not choose to name the individual assignees whose
assignments were cancelled.
The District Collector suppressed the above referred official
proceedings and appears to be trying to cast a doubt on the genuineness
of the claim for title made by the petitioners and its purchasers
unnecessarily, and his conduct, in our opinion, cannot be said to be
bonafide.
58. Moreover, if the assignments themselves have occurred in 1972
and the alienations took place from 1992 onwards, and the land changed
hands more than once by the time proceedings for resumption of land
were initiated in 2011 and thereafter, whether the original assignees were
served any notices by the State authorities before passing such orders, is
highly doubtful.
59. In para-5 of the counter affidavit, the facts narrated by the
petitioner have been set out by the 2nd respondent.
60. In para-6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated by the District
Collector that meanwhile, the Government, taking note of irregular
transfers of assigned lands constituted a Task Force Committee under
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::28::
the Chairmanship of S.K. Sinha, I.A.S., former Special Chief Secretary
to enquire into the irregular transfers and mutations of lands in
Sy.Nos.191 and 30 of Kollur and Osmannagar Villages. It is also stated
that the Task Force Committee submitted a detailed report to the
Government on 28.07.2016.
On what basis the said Committee conducted enquiry when the
records relating to the assignments in these two survey numbers were
admittedly "not available", is not disclosed by the District Collector.
Though an extract of the report has been filed along with the
counter affidavit by the District Collector, the contents of the report are
general in nature and not specific as regards the land claimed by the
petitioner though there is a reference to Sy.No.191 of Kollur Village and
Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar Village which together cover Ac.480.00. The
contents of the said report are not useful to the State.
61. If there was really any violation of conditions of assignment of
lands by the assignees, who had been assigned land in 1972, why the
State had allowed so many alienations by way of registered transactions
to take place and also effected mutation in revenue record of the names
of the purchasers, is not explained. It is also not explained what the
officials of the State were doing over the last 40 years if such violation
of conditions of assignment allegedly took place.
62. It is then contended by the District Collector in para-6 that since
the property claimed by the petitioner and its alleged Developer M/s
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::29::
SSPDL forms part of Sy.No.30 of the Osmannagar village and
Sy.No.191 of Kollur village, and the entire extents in these survey
numbers are subject matter of the enquiry, the same were included as
prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
63. Only if the subject land was prohibited from alienation, the
provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,
1977 would apply and such land can be included in any prohibitory list
under Sec.22-A (1) (a) by the District Collector/State Government.
64. When the report of the Tahsildar dt.25.01.2014 specifically states
that the lands were sold after 10 years from the date of assignment made
to Ex-Servicemen, there is no basis for the respondents 1 to 6 to contend
that there were justified in including them in the list of prohibited
properties under Section 22-A(1) (a) of the Registration Act, 1908.
65. In para-7 of his counter, the District Collector states that the
petitioner should have filed an application or representation under Sub-
section (4) of Section 22 for reconsideration of the entire issue.
This plea is without any merit because there is no record of
assignment available with the respondents 1 to 6 for them to reconsider
the issue even if such an application were to be filed under Sub-Section
(4) of Sec.22A; and in any event, a provision to make an application,
cannot be said to be in the nature of an alternative remedy, barring the
filing of Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::30::
66. An ingenuous argument was also raised by the Government
Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent nos.1 to 6, i.e., that
assuming that the assignees were ex-servicemen from whom the
petitioners' predecessors-in-title purchased the subject property, such
assignments were not granted as per G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 as
amended by G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993, which permitted alienation
by the ex-servicemen assignees after ten years, and that such
assignments were only made under G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue
dt.25.07.1958 which prohibited alienation of assigned land and only
made it heritable.
67. As stated above, there is no assignment record available with the
respondent nos.1 to 6.
68. So, it is not possible for the respondents 1 to 6 to
speculate/imagine under which G.O. the ex-servicemen were actually
assigned the lands. On what basis the learned Government Pleader for
Revenue is presuming that the assignments to the ex-servicemen were
made under G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue dt.25.07.1958, is not stated by
him. In our opinion, such a contention cannot be raised without any
factual basis.
69. Even otherwise, if there is an assignment of land to a person, who
is an ex-servicemen, and he is a landless poor person entitled for
assignment, even if by some error, the said assignment was made
quoting G.O.Ms.No.1406 Revenue dt.25.07.1958 and not mentioning
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::31::
G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 or G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993, we
are of the opinion that the assignees, who are admittedly ex-servicemen
are still entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993 despite
the existence of any condition in the Deed of Assignment prohibiting
alienation.
70. Similar view has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
Ande Narasimha Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh7, and by the High
Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh in Thatisetty Kusuma Kumari and others vs. Sub-Registrar,
Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam District and others8.
71. In Ande Narasimha Rao (7 supra), an ex-servicemen was granted
assignment of land by the State without mentioning G.O.Ms.No.743
dt.30.04.1963. The assignment deed also contained a condition
prohibiting transfer of property while permitting enjoyment of the same
by inheritance.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that despite existence of the
said condition, the petitioner is still entitled to the benefit of
G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993 and he was entitled to sell away the
assigned land after ten years from the date of assignment.
2013 (3) A.L.T. 500
AIR 2017 A.P. 713
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::32::
It held that such land cannot be included in the prohibitory
register and the registering authorities cannot refuse to register the deed
transferring the same.
In that case also, like in the instant case, the Darkhast file (i.e., the
Record of Assignment) was missing, and the Court held that the missing
of the file cannot be to the disadvantage of the petitioner.
72. In Thatisetty Kusuma Kumari (8 supra), the husband of the
petitioner was admittedly an ex-servicemen and he had been assigned
land during his lifetime. After his death, the petitioner and his children
wanted to alienate the said land, but the Sub-Registrar refused to register
it on the ground that it was included in the list of prohibited properties
communicated under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 by the
District Collector to him. There was also an order passed by the District
Collector refusing to delete the said land from the prohibitory list.
The High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the
State of Andhra Pradesh (one of us, i.e., MSR,J had rendered the said
decision) held that firstly only the State Government under Section
22A(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 can de-notify either in full or part
any property which has been notified under sub-Section (1) (a) of
Section 22A, and the District Collector has no such jurisdiction to pass
any order refusing to delete the said land from the Prohibitory Register.
Though there was a condition prohibiting alienation in the Deed
of Assignment granted to the petitioner's husband, this Court held that
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::33::
since there is no dispute that he was an ex-servicemen, he was entitled to
assignment as per G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 and G.O.Ms.No.1117
dt.11.11.1993 and the condition in the Deed of Assignment prohibiting
alienation cannot override these Government Orders.
It also held that instead of assigning the land to the husband of
petitioner under G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963, which entitled ex-
servicemen to assignment of land, without application of mind, the
District Collector had assigned the land invoking G.O.Ms.No.1142
Revenue Department dt.18.06.1954 applicable in Andhra Area. It held
that for the mistake done by the respondents in assigning land to an ex-
servicemen by quoting the wrong G.O., his family cannot be made to
suffer; and that the State also cannot discriminate between ex-
servicemen who obtained assignment under G.O.Ms.No.743
dt.30.04.1963 and those who were assigned land quoting
G.O.Ms.No.1142 Revenue Department dt.18.06.1954. It held that all ex-
servicemen form part of the same class and there would be no
intelligible differentia to distinguish one category of ex-servicemen from
the other category and it would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India if there were to be such discrimination.
73. We respectfully approve the decisions in Ande Narasimha Rao
(7 supra) and Thatisetty Kusuma Kumari (8 supra) and follow the
same and hold that even if there is a clause prohibiting alienation in the
deeds of assignment issued to the ex-servicemen, from whom the
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::34::
petitioner's predecessors-in-title purchased the subject land, such a
clause will not prevail over G.O.Ms.No.743 Revenue Department
dt.30.04.1963 and G.O.Ms.No.1117 Revenue Department dt.11.11.1993,
and such assignee / ex-servicemen / their family members can alienate
the assigned land after ten years from the date of assignment without
seeking any permission from the State Government.
74. The 7th respondent had filed along with his implead application
I.A.No.2 of 2019 in this Writ Petition, as Ex.R.7, copy of Supplementary
Sethwar and Assignment Phodi giving list of 83 ex-servicemen
assignees of land in Kollur Village of the then Sangareddy Taluq, and
the extents of land assigned to them in Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar Village
and Sy.No.191 of Kollur Village prepared by the Dy. Surveyor,
Assistant Director, Survey Department and the Joint Collector, Medak
District.
He had also filed along with his counter-affidavit copy of
proceedings No.B1/1533/75 dt.10.09.1975 issued by the District
Revenue Officer, Medak at Sanga Reddy (Ex.R.7) containing therein the
list of ex-servicemen from Serial No.166 to 246 (81 persons) who were
entitled to assignment in Osmannagar Village.
He has also filed proceedings L.R.No.C3/3734/2007
dt.18.07.2007, D1/7288/07 dt.25.07.2007 which is a report of the then
Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy to the District Collector,
Medak in respect of lands purchased by M/s. SSPDL under sale deed
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::35::
dt.28.08.2006 (Document No.19918 of 2006) for Acs.10.29 gts. in
Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar and Acs.13.39 gts. in Sy.No.191 of Kollur
Village and sale deed dt.24.06.2006 (Document No.15441 of 2006) for
an extent of Acs.20.095 gts. in Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar Village. In the
said document he considered the request for transfer of patta in favour of
M/s.SSPDL and recorded the fact that the land was originally
Government land assigned to ex-servicemen in 1972 and was purchased
by M/s.SSPDL's vendors and had also given a flow chart. He
categorically mentioned that all alienations occurred only after expiry of
ten years from 1993 and recommended to the District Collector to
sanction mutation in favour of M/s.SSPDL. On the basis of the said
recommendation, the Collector, Medak addressed letter dt.12.02.2008 to
the Principal Secretary (Revenue) seeking clarification whether the sale
transactions are valid or not.
He has also filed proceedings I/3289/08 dt.03.10.2008 issued by
the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram granting mutation to M/s.SSPDL for
an extent of Acs.20.09 ½ in Survey No.30/P of Osmannagar Village.
75. These documents prima facie prove the case of the petitioner and
the private respondent nos.7 to 9 that the land in Sy.No.30 of
Osmannagar Village and Sy.No.191 of Kollur Village was assigned to
ex-servicemen and that they had alienated the lands after the expiry of
ten years from the dates of assignments.
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::36::
76. None of the above documents are disputed by the learned
Government Pleader, appearing for respondent nos.1 to 6.
77. So, notwithstanding the fact that respondent nos.1 to 6 contend
that the Record of Assignment of these lands is "not available", there is
enough material to hold that the prohibition for assignment of these
lands under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977
is not attracted to the said land since the alienations were made by the
ex-servicemen more than ten years after the dates of assignment.
78. Consequently, the respondent nos.1 to 6 are not entitled to put
these lands in the Prohibitory Register invoking sub-Section (1)(a) of
Section 22A of the Act.
79. Therefore, proceedings / Letter No.D1/1221/2016 dt.13.02.2017
issued by the District Collector, Sangareddy District is set aside insofar
as lands in Sy.No.30/P of Osmannagar Village and Sy.No.191/P of
Kollur Village are concerned.
80. Respondent nos.4 to 6 are directed to register the conveyance
deeds / sale deeds executed by the petitioner-Society in favour of its
members in respect of the houses constructed / built in land covered by
sale deed dt.04.02.2015 (Document No.4367 of 2015) on the file of
District Registrar, Sangareddy if they are presented by the petitioner-
Society subject to compliance with all other formalities relating to
payment of stamp duty and registration charges without objecting that
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::37::
the land covered by the said documents is mentioned in the proceedings /
Letter No.D1/1221/2016 dt.13.02.2017 issued by the District Collector,
Sangareddy District.
81. Though respondent nos.7 to 9 have disputed the title of the
petitioner to the land claimed by it, they supported the petitioner's case
insofar as the petitioner had challenged inclusion of the lands in
Sy.No.30/P of Osmannagar Village and Sy.No.191/P of Kollur Village
and adopted the contentions of counsel for petitioner.
82. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
right, title or interest of respondent nos.7 to 9 vis-à-vis the petitioner, and
the same would have to be decided in an appropriate forum in an
appropriate proceeding uninfluenced by any observations made in this
order.
83. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.15041 of 2019 is allowed;
proceedings / Letter No.D1/1221/2016 dt.13.02.2017 issued by the
District Collector, Sangareddy District is set aside insofar as lands in
Sy.No.30/P of Osmannagar Village and Sy.No.191/P of Kollur Village
are concerned; Respondent nos.4 to 6 are directed to register the
conveyance deeds / sale deeds executed by the petitioner-Society in
favour of its members in respect of the houses constructed / built in land
covered by sale deed dt.04.02.2015 (Document No.4367 of 2015) on the
file of District Registrar, Sangareddy if they are presented by the
petitioner-Society subject to compliance with all other formalities
MSR,J & TVK,J
wp_15041_2019
::38::
relating to payment of stamp duty and registration charges without
objecting that the land covered by the said documents is mentioned in
the proceedings / Letter No.D1/1221/2016 dt.13.02.2017 issued by the
District Collector, Sangareddy District; and the respondents 1 to 6 shall
pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner.
84. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
stand closed.
____________________________
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
_______________________
T.VINOD KUMAR, J
Date: 07.04.2021
Note: L.R. copies to be marked.
B/o Svv/Ndr
