Telangana High Court

Suresh Kumar Jain, vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 June, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

                         W.P. No.24859 of 2011

ORDER:

The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders No.737/Appeal/

2011 dated 23.07.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent, District

Registrar, R.R. District, Hyderabad, dismissing the appeal

No.737/2011 filed by the petitioners and refusal order dated

01.02.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent, Sub-Registrar,

Rajendranagar, R.R. District, seeking prayer to set aside the same and

direct the 3rd respondent to proceed with the registration of the

document.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased an

extent of Acs.2.00 of land in Sy.No.48/23 at Katedan village,

Rajendranagar Mandal and Municipality, R.R. District from one

Sri Jitendra Kumar and Sri Sunil Kumar under an Agreement of

Sale-cum-GPA dated 03.10.2006. After execution of the said

document, the same has been presented before the respondent No.3,

Sub-Registrar, Rajendranagar, for registration. Though the document

was duly presented for registration, the respondent No.3 did not

proceed with the registration and the said document was kept pending

since 2006.

3. It is further submitted that since the said property has not been

notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the respondent

No.3 has no right to withhold the process of completion of registration.

NVSK, J

The petitioners earlier filed W.P. No.23524 of 2010, and subsequently

the respondent No.3 refused to register the document vide refusal

order dated 01.02.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners

preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2, District Registrar,

vide Appeal No.737 of 2011 and the same has been dismissed vide

order dated 23.07.2011 on the basis of the Revenue authorities letter

No.D/1132/2010 dated 29.01.2011 issued by the Tahsildar holding

that the land is classified as Lavoni Patta and Kancha land with an

observation that the appellant may approach the concerned Civil

Court as per Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 and for the said

reason the registration is refused.

4. It is submitted that both the respondents No.2 and 3 have failed

to appreciate that the document was presented in the year 2006

whereas the proceedings relied upon by the respondents No.2 and 3 is

dated 29.01.2011 and that there is no reason assigned by the

respondents as to why they kept the document pending till 2011 when

the same was presented in the year 2006. The petitioners have

reliable come to know that the respondents have registered a

document vide Doc.No.1627/2007 executed by Sri Jithender Kumar

and Sri Sunil Kumar in favour of Mr. Md.Abdul Bhari and no reason

was stated by the respondents as to how the said document has been

registered. In the ground urged in the appeal, it is stated that already

in the year 1989 two documents Doc.No.2762/1989 and 2765/1989

dated 10.04.1989 were registered and whereas it is not stated in the NVSK, J

impugned order as to how the said documents were registered and the

impugned order has been passed without reference to the said

documents. Assailing the same, petitioners filed the present writ

petition.

5. Denying the writ averments, the respondent No.3,

Sub-Registrar, Rajendranagar, filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating

that the document purporting to be an agreement of Sale-cum-

General Power of Attorney for Rs.64,00,000/- was presented for

registration. The property stated in the schedule of property is

Acs.2.00 gts., in Sy.No.48/23 of Kattedan village Rajendranagar

Mandal, R.R.District, is in Inventory of Assigned lands classified as

"Kancha" and as per Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition

of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No.9 of 1977) and as per the Revenue

records issued by the Deputy Collector/Tahsildar vide

Lr.No.D/1132/2010, dated 29.01.2011, the said lands are classified

as Laoni Patta. Basing upon the said records, the Registering

authority refused to register the subject document vide refusal order

dated 01.02.2011. It is further submitted that if the property is a

Government land as per the list supplied by the Revenue Department,

there is no need to notify the same under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act and the contention of the petitioners that the property

was not notified as per Section 22-A of the Act is not tenable since

there is prohibition for registration of Government land prior to the NVSK, J

introduction of Section 22-A of the Act. In view of the above, it is

prayed to dismissed the writ petition.

6. On behalf of the respondent No.4, no specific counter affidavit

has been filed however, the learned counsel Sri B.Srinarayana,

has filed a Memo dated 25.07.2024 and contends that the writ

petitioners have suppressed the material facts and are not entitled to

the extraordinary discretion relief under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Learned counsel would submit that there are

civil disputes between the petitioners themselves and with the third

parties and in such circumstances, the petitioners ought to have

availed remedy available under Section 77 of the Registration Act by

way of filing a suit. It is further contended that the petitioners cannot

seek directions for registration of AGPA dated 03.10.2006 when the

same has been cancelled and the original vendors have already

conveyed the property to respondent No.5 and thereafter by

respondent No.5 to respondent No.4, more so when the original

vendors are not parties to this writ petition and the same is liable to

be dismissed for non joinder of parties. In support of this submission,

reliance was placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

and others 1 and Dove Investments (P) Limited and others Vs.

Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation and another 2.

(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114

(2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 619 NVSK, J

7. In their chronology of brief events it is contended that on

03.10.2006 two brothers namely Mr. Jitender Kumar and Sunil

Kumar ('the vendors') executed an Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA in

favour of the petitioners and presented the same for registration

before the registering authority. Thereafter, disputes arose between

the parties and the said registration was not pursued further.

8. On 22.01.2007, vendors issued legal notice to the petitioners

informing them that the said agreement of Sale-cum-GPA dated

03.10.2006 is cancelled and revoked on the ground that no sale

consideration was paid by returning the cheques for Rs.20 lakhs and

further notified them not to enter into any transactions with the land

in question. Similar notice was published in the newspapers notifying

the general public regarding the cancellation of the said Agreement of

Sale-cum-GPA and not to enter any transaction with respect to

property in question.

9. On 25.01.2007, vendors executed and registered an AGPA in

favour of the respondent No.5 for sale consideration of Rs.70 lakhs,

wherein above said cancellation of AGPA and dispute between the

petitioners and vendors was mentioned and on 27.01.2007 and

31.01.2007, petitioners No.2 and 3 received the above said notice

dated 22.01.2007 and thereafter, there was a brief exchange of

communications between 3rd petitioner and vendors.

NVSK, J

10. Thereafter, on 09.07.2008, the respondent No.5 sold the

property to the respondent No.4 vide registered sale deed bearing

Document No.5032 of 2008 and on 30.09.2008, vendors filed a suit in

O.S. No.985 of 2008 against the respondent No.5 to cancel the AGPA

dated 25.01.2007 and same is reserved for judgment.

11. It is further submitted that on 04.08.2010, after 4 years of

refusal by Sub-Registrar, petitioners without disclosing all the events

narrated above have filed W.P. No.23524 of 2010 to declare the action

of the Sub-Registrar keeping AGPA dated 03.10.2006 pending as

arbitrary and illegal and on 01.02.2011, pending the above writ

petition, the respondent No.3 passed impugned order refusing to

orders passed by the respondent No.3 dated 01.02.2011, the said writ

petition was disposed of directing the petitioners to avail the

alternative remedy.

12. Thereafter, on 23.07.2011, challenging the said refusal order of

the respondent No.3, petitioners filed an appeal before the respondent

No.2 and the respondent No.2 confirmed the order of the respondent

No.3 and directed the petitioners to avail remedy of suit under Section

77 of the Registration Act.

13. On 02.09.2011, without exhausting the remedy of suit under

Section 77 of the Act, petitioners filed the present writ petition

questioning the said order passed by the respondent No.2.

NVSK, J

14. On behalf of the respondent No.5, while denying the writ

averments, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that the

land admeasuring Acs.2.00 in Sy.No.48/23 of Kattedhan Village,

Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District originally belonged to

two individuals by name Suresh Kumar Jain and Jitender Kumar.

Later they have executed a registered Agreement of Sale coupled with

General Power of Attorney on 25.01.2007 conveying the title, right and

interest in favour of the respondent No.5 and the said property is in

his possession and enjoyment. Thereafter, by virtue of the registered

sale deed dated 09.07.2008, the respondent No.5 alienated the land to

the respondent No.4 and ever since then, the respondent No.4 is in

possession and enjoyment of the property.

15. It is further submitted that Sri Jitender Kumar and Sri Sunil

Kumar appeared to have executed an Agreement of Sale coupled with

GPA on 03.10.2006 in favour of the petitioners No.1 to 3 and though

the petitioners No.1 and 2, Suresh Kumar Jain and Ratan Mahesh

Kumar, were made as GPA holder but they were nominal parties. The

fact remains that Sri Jitender Kumar and Sunil Kumar, who have

executed the Agreement of Sale Cum GPA in favour of the respondent

No.5 on 25.07.2007, before execution of the same, returned the

amount received from Sri Thakur Amar Singh by cancelling the same.

The said document was kept pending as petitioner No.3, Thakur Amar

Singh, questioned about the entering of names of Suresh Kumnar &

Ratan Mahesh as Mr. Thakur Amar Singh was paying the NVSK, J

consideration and not the said two other persons. Suppressing these

facts, they have earlier filed W.P.No.23524 of 2010 before this Court

questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in keeping the AGPA

Document No.175 of 2006 dated 03.10.2006 pending without

completing of process of registration. The said writ petition was

disposed of on 14.02.2011 directing the petitioners to approach the

appellate authority under the provisions of the Registration Act.

Accordingly, they approached the appellate authority and the

appellate authority by order dated 23.07.2011 relegated them to

approach the common law Court, which has not been assailed in the

present writ petition. In view of the suppression of these facts, the

present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

16. It is further submitted that the subject lands are patta lands

and that the writ petitioners have received the entire amount back

upon notice to them by Sri Jitender Kumar and Sri Sunil Kumar,

who later after cancellation and after repayment have entered into an

agreement of Sale-cum-GPA on 25.01.2007 in favour of the

respondent No.5 and thereafter sold the said property to the

respondent under a registered sale deed on 09.07.2008.

17. It is further submitted that the Sy.No.48 of Khatedan village,

Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District comprises of Acs.397.37

guntas and the entire extent was Government land. The said lands

were distributed among various ryots on payment of 16 times of land

revenue under the Laoni Rules 1950 by sub dividing the said lands.

NVSK, J

In the said distribution one Sri Poyila Venkaiah was also assigned

land to an extent of Acs.4.35 guntas and sub division number allotted

to the said land was Sy.No.48/23. After demise of the said Poyila

Venkaiah, his legal heirs jointly alienated one acre each of the said

land in favour of one Sri Jitender Kumar and one Sri Sunil Kumar

vide registered sale deeds dated 08.03.1989 bearing Documents

No.2762 and 2765 of 1989 on the file of the District Registrar, Ranga

Reddy District and consequently, on applications made by them, the

revenue records have been mutated by replacing the names of original

pattedars with that of the said Sri Jitendra Kumar and Sunil Kumar

vide proceedings in Ref.No.K/119/ROR/89 and K/120/ROR/89 dated

19.01.1990. Thereafter, the said lands were sold to the respondent

No.5 by registered agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney

dated 25.01.2007 vide bearing Document No.1627 of 2007 on the file

of the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District and accordingly

possession of land to an extent of Acs.2.00 was delivered.

18. It is further submitted that the respondent No.5 has purchased

the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 09.07.2008

bearing document No.5032 of 2008 and is in possession and

enjoyment of the same and any orders passed to register the

agreement of Sale-cum-GPA dated 03.10.2006 in favour of the

petitioners would affect the rights of the respondent No.5 and will be

put to irreparable loss and serious hardship to him. Eventually

prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

NVSK, J

SUBMISSIONS:

19. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Sunil B.Ganu appearing for the

petitioners would submit that the petitioners purchased the subject

land having paid the entire sale consideration to their vendors and

also paid applicable registration charges and stamp duty on

03.10.2006. Initially, the present writ petition is filed against the

respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. official respondents and thereafter the

respondents No.4 and 5 have got impleaded themselves by filing

separate implead petitions.

20. learned Senior Counsel had reiterated that the vendors of the

writ petitions Sri Jitender Kumar and Sunil Kumar are the owners of

the subject land admeasuring Acs.2.00 gts., in Sy.No.48/23 Kattedan

village, Ranga Reddy District through two separate registered sale

deed Document No.2762 and 2765 of 1989. On 03.10.2006 said

Jitender Kumar and Sunil Kumar have executed an AGPA in favour of

the petitioners No.1 to 3 and presented before the respondent No.3 for

its registration, which was kept pending as P.No.176/2006 without

disclosing any reason. On 25.01.2007, the vendors of the petitioners

have also executed another AGPA in respect of the same land in

favour of the respondent No.5 and it was placed before the respondent

No.3 for its registration and after its registration it is released as AGPA

Document No.1627/2007 on the same day i.e. 25.01.2007.

NVSK, J

21. It is further submitted that on 09.07.2008, the respondent No.5

executed a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent No.4,

who is none other than the brother-in-law of the respondent No.5.

On 30.09.2008, vendors of the petitioners have filed a suit for

declaration in O.S. No.985 of 2008 before the X Additional District

Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking cancellation of said AGPA

No.1627 of 2007 executed in favour of the respondent No.5.

22. On 20.08.2010, the petitioners have filed W.P. No.23524 of

2010 questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in keeping said

AGPA dated 03.10.2006 of petitioners pending. After filing the said

writ petition, the respondent No.3 passed refusal of registration order

dated 01.02.2011 on the strength of letter issued by the

Dy.Collector/Tahsildar. Aggrieved by the said order dated 01.02.2011

passed by the respondent No.3, petitioners preferred an appeal under

Section 72 of the Stamps and Registration Act before the respondent

No.2 on 07.03.2011. On 23.07.2011, the respondent No.2 passed

impugned refusal orders.

23. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the

respondent No.3 kept the AGPA dated 03.10.2006 of the petitioners

till date stating that the subject land is Government land but whereas

released the AGPA dated 25.07.2007 of respondent No.5 in respect of

the same land with the same boundaries on same day. A subsequent

registered sale deed dated 09.07.2008 was registered and released in

favour of the respondent No.5. The official respondents are taking two NVSK, J

different stands with regard to the nature of the subject land. As far

as AGPA of the petitioners is concerned, the official respondents are

stating that it is a Government land and whereas the AGPA and sale

deed of respondents No.4 and 5 are registered and released.

24. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that vide

proceedings No.B/2170/2008 dated 28.01.2009, the Dy.Collector and

Tahsildar, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R.District stated that as per

Revenue records i.e. Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 the land in

Sy.No.48, admeasuring Ac.379.37 guntas situated at Kattedan village

is classified as Kancha Sarkar. It is in fact the respondent No.4 in

W.P. No.435 of 2009 has conducted a detailed enquiry and dropped

the action under Section 3 of the Act 9/77 vide Proceedings

No.B/945/2008 dated 31.05.2008 and ryot was assigned on payment

of 16 times of land value. In the case of respondents No.4 and 5,

the Dy.Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R.District

issued said proceedings No.B/2170/2008 dated 28.01.2009 stating

that the proceeding dropped under Section 3 of the Assigned Land

Act. But coming to the petitioners case, the same Dy.Collector and

Tahsildar, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R.District issued alleged

No.D/1132/2010 dated 29.01.2011 stating that the subject land is

Government land basing on which the impugned orders have been

passed.

NVSK, J

25. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the refusal

orders passed by respondents No.2 and 3 are contrary to settled

proposition and presently the subject land is not notified under

Section 22-A of the Registration Act. 1908.

26. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the subject

matter of the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order

passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Bomma Reddy Rama Koti Reddy Vs. State of Telangana (2022 (5)

ALD 279) and another order passed by this Court in W.P.19879 of

2010 on 03.07.2024.

27. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4

submitted that the persons who approaches the Court with unclean

hands by suppressing the material facts is not entitled to

extraordinary discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India even if case is made out. In support of his contention,

he placed reliance in the case of Dalip Singh and Dove Investments

(supra).

28. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material made available on the record.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS:

29. Upon a perusal of the impugned Proceedings dated 23.07.2011,

it is seen that the appeal has been preferred by the petitioner No.2

under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, against the refusal NVSK, J

order No.1 of 2011 of P.No.175/2006 of Sub-Registrar Office,

Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District under Section 71 of the Act,

1908, which is an agreement of Sale-cum-GPA of agricultural land

bearing Sy.No.48/23 admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas situated at

Katedhan village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The

said pending document was refused for registration on the ground

that the subject Sy.No.48/23 of Katedhan village is stated to be in the

inventory of assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (Act 9

of 1977) as per the Revenue records issued by the Deputy

Collector/Tahsildar Lr.No.D/1132/2010 dated 29.01.2011 classified

as Lavoni Patta.

30. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that the subject property

has not been notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and

therefore, the registering authority have no right to with-hold the

process of registration. In this regard, the appellate authority i.e.

respondent No.2 observed that the Sub-Registrar has refused the

registration of document on the ground that the property under

Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA is a Kancha and Lavoni Patta and

instructions from the Revenue Authority i.e. Deputy Collector/

Tahsildar. With the said observation, the appellate authority held that

if the property is a Government land as per the list supplied by the

Revenue Department there is no need to notify the same under

Section 22-A of the Registration Act and the contention of the

appellant therein that the property was not notified as per Section NVSK, J

22-A of the Act is not tenable since there is prohibition of registration

of Government land prior to the introduction of Section 22-A of the

Act. It is further observed that it cannot be said that just because one

registering authority has registered a prohibited property per se will

entitle the property to be registered again. It is further held that the

procedure adopted by the Sub-Registrar need not be objected to in

refusing the document for registration as the said land is classified as

Lavoni patta as per the Revenue records issued by the Deputy

Collector/ Tahsildar vide Lr.No.D/1132/2010 dated 29.01.2011

(Assigned land). With the above observations, the appellate authority,

while confirming the refusal order passed by the Sub-Registrar,

dismissed the appeal leaving it open to the appellant therein to

approach the concerned civil Court within (30) days from the date of

the order as per Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908.

31. At this juncture, it is not out of place to mention that in the

case of M/s.Invecta Technologies Private Limited Vs. Government

of Andhra Pradesh 3 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court

has upheld the validity of the Section 22-A of the Registration Act,

while referring to the decision of the Full Bench in the case of

Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary Vs. Revenue Department 4 recorded its

conclusions with regard to various clauses of Section

22-A of the Act and had issued certain directions at para No.156.

The relevant Clauses are extracted below for reference:

2024 (1) ALT 272 (DB)

2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) : 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407 NVSK, J

(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 Registration Act, shall clearly indicate the relevant clause under which each property is classified.

(ii) Insofar as clause (a) is concerned, the concerned District Collectors 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.

....

(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 indicate the same to all concerned, may be by issuing a press note or an advertisement in prominent daily news papers.

....

(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.

NVSK, J

(viii) The concerned authorities, 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 concerned Registering Officers 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 concerned authorities as provided for in the guidelines. The concerned authorities 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 concerned 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 concerned authorities 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."

NVSK, J

The Hon'ble Division Bench further at para No.39 held as under:

"39. Interpreting the aforesaid guidelines, the Full Bench of this Court in paragraph 101 has held as under:

101. The guidelines, thus, provide the procedure for preparing lists of properties covered by clauses

(a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A and as to who is supposed to forward such list and to whom. Clauses (a) & (b) provide that it is the District Collectors alone shall furnish lists of properties "prohibited under the statutes" of immovable properties owned by the State and Central Governments. It further provides that the list should be forwarded to registering officers having jurisdiction over such property and also to the District Registrar, Deputy Inspector General (R&S) concerned and to the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in the proforma appended as Annexure I and II to the guidelines under proper acknowledgment. Even deletions and modifications to these lists also are required to be sent to these authorities. These guidelines, in our opinion, need to be followed scrupulously. In other words, lists of properties covered under clauses (a) & (b) of Section 22-A (1) of the Registration Act shall be furnished only by the District Collectors to the aforementioned authorities under the Registration Act. The concerned registering officer, Registrar or Sub-

Registrar as the case may be, shall act on the lists of properties covered by clauses (a) & (b) only and only when the list is forwarded to them by the District Collectors. Thus, the question of forwarding of lists of properties covered by clauses NVSK, J

(a) & (b) by the officers of different departments to the registering authorities directly does not arise and if the registering officers receive any list directly from different departments, officers of the Government (other than the District Collectors), he is not expected to look into such lists and act upon them. The officers of different departments should forward their list to the District Collector, who in turn is expected to examine the list and after having satisfied of its correctness may forward it further to the aforementioned authorities. In short, the District Collector is not expected to act as postmen. If list of prohibited property is received by the registering officer directly, the registering officers at the most can return such lists to the concerned department requesting them to forward it through the concerned District Collectors, who, under the Guidelines, are enjoined with the duty of furnishing the lists to the authorities mentioned above in the office of Registration and Stamps."

32. In the case on hand, the respondent No.2 has confirmed the

order of the respondent No.3 in refusing the Sale-cum-GPA

P.No.175/2006 in view of the letter No.D/1132/2010 dated

29.01.2011 issued by the Deputy Collector/Tahsildar that the land is

Lavoni Patta and Kancha land.

33. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of

this Court in the case of M/s. Invecta (supra), the Sub-Registrar

cannot rely upon the entries made in the Revenue records, which has

not been officially routed by the District Collector and the Division NVSK, J

Bench of this Court had observed that unless a list is furnished by the

District Collector and send it to the concerned District Registrar

authorities, the District Registrar authority i.e. respondents No.2 and

3 in the instant case, solely cannot rely upon the communication

given by the Deputy Collector/Tahsildar vide Lr.No.D/1132/2010

dated 29.01.2011 to the Sub-Registrar, Rajendranagar Mandal,

classifying the subject land as Lavoni Patta and Kancha land.

34. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has passed common

order dated 13.12.2021 in W.P. No.28643 of 2021 wherein had taken

the similar view. For reference, relevant paras are extracted below.

"Clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A are concerned, it is clear that the concerned authority i.e., District Collectors in case of properties covered by Clauses (a) and (b), Commissioner in case of Endowment and Secretary in case of Wakf Properties covered by clause (c ) and the Special Officer and competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and Regulations in respect of the properties covered under clause (d) have suo motu power to add to the list or delete form the list of any property and/or to modify the list sent to the registering officer, having jurisdiction over such property and also to the District Registrar, Deputy Inspector General or to Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps.

NVSK, J

14. Admittedly, the letters addressed by the 4th respondent are not falling under any of the clauses mentioned under Section 22-A of the Act of 1908, nor procedure envisaged there under is followed before issuance of impugned letters, as such, the respondent Nos.5 to 9 are under no obligation to act upon such letter and deny transactions in respect of the properties of the petitioners. The respondent Nos. 5 to 9 have acted illegally and included the properties of the petitioners in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act. The 4th respondent-Inspector of Police is not an 'authority' prescribed in Section 22-A of the Act of 1908 for preparation of list of properties to be communicated to the registering authorities i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 9, for incorporating the same in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act."

35. Based on the said order, the learned Single Judge has passed

an order dated 03.07.2024 in W.P. No.19879 of 2010 holding that the

rejection order therein is not in accordance with the law.

36. In view of the preceding judicial pronouncements, this Court is

of the considered view that the impugned appeal order dated

23.07.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent is not sustainable in the eye

of law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned

Proceedings No.737/Appeal/2011, dated 23.07.2011 and the refusal

order dated 01.02.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent are hereby set

aside.

NVSK, J

37. It is to be noted that mere registration of any document,