Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 78 (AP)

I. Kesava Reddy v. State of A. P.

2019-06-07

M.GANGA RAO

body2019
ORDER : M. Ganga Rao, J. 1. Assailing the arbitrary action of the 4th respondent, Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Tirupati Rural, Chittoor District, in refusing to receive, register and release the documents presented by the petitioners in respect of the land admeasuring 785 Sq. yards and 580 Sq. yards situated in Survey No. 489/2a and 489/2b of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District on the ground that it is assigned land, is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard both the learned counsel. 3. Originally, the land extent of Ac. 4.61 cents situated in Survey No. 489/2 of Avilala Village was classified as Assessed Waste Dry land. The land was assigned in favour of P. Ramakrishna Reddy and P. Vasudeva Reddy, residents of Tirupati by the then Tahsildar, Chandragiri under the provisions of Board Standing Order 15. The total extent of the land is Ac. 4.61 cents. Smt. L. Lalithamma has purchased Ac. 2.30 ½ cents through a registered Document No. 3736 of 1976 and the remaining Ac. 2.30 ½ of land was purchased by K. Hari Prasad's grandmother (petitioners' vendors' vendor) through a registered Document No. 3735 of 1976 dated 11.12.1976. Since then, they were in possession and enjoyment of their respective land and their names were also recorded in the revenue records. After demise of the Hari Prasad's grandmother, Ac. 2.30 ½ of land was devolved on K. Hari Prasad through registered Will deed. The then Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal vide proceedings dated 10.09.2007 cancelled DKT patta and ordered for resumption of the land in favour of the Government under Section 4(1) of the Act 9 of 1977. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Tahsildar dated 10.09.2007, Lalithamma and Hari Prasad preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 4(A) along with the stay application. Apprehending dispossession thereof, they also approached the High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2210 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of on 09.02.2009 directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the appeal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after due enquiry, set aside the resumption orders dated 10.09.2007 passed by the Tahsildar and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry vide proceedings D.Dis.G/210/2008 dated 04.06.2011 and directing the Tahsildar to examine the case under the provisions of Section 3(5) of the Act 9 of 1977. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after due enquiry, set aside the resumption orders dated 10.09.2007 passed by the Tahsildar and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry vide proceedings D.Dis.G/210/2008 dated 04.06.2011 and directing the Tahsildar to examine the case under the provisions of Section 3(5) of the Act 9 of 1977. The Tahsildar issued a fresh notice dated 09.06.2011 calling for explanation from Lalithamma and Hari Prasad. In pursuance of the notice, they submitted their explanations on 14.06.2011 categorically stating that they were the bona fide purchasers having purchased the said land in good faith and for valuable consideration and it was not within their knowledge that the land purchased by them in Survey No. 489/2 admeasuring Ac. 4.61 cents is assigned land. Therefore, they requested the Tahsildar to consider their case under Section 3(5) of the Act 9 of 1977 as they are landless poor persons. Section 3(5) of the Act 9 of 1977 reads thus: "(5) Nothing in this Section shall apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house site on the date of such commencement." Based on the request of K. Lalithamma and K. Hari Prasad and having regard to the above provision, the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal restored the lands, as the transfer is saved under Section 3(5) of the Act 9 of 1977 vide R. Dis. No. (D)720/2011 dated 20.06.2011. The said orders are implemented in the revenue records and in all the adangals, 10(1) Account and 1-B register and they were shown as pattadars in the revenue records. Later, when K. Lalithamma and K. Hari Prasad approached the Sub-Registrar to know the value of the land and the stamp duty payable on the document as they were intended to sell away the land, he refused to entertain the document in respect of the land situated in Survey No. 489/2 on the ground that it is assigned land. Therefore, there is a prohibition of transfer under Section 3(1) of Act 9 of 1977. Therefore, there is a prohibition of transfer under Section 3(1) of Act 9 of 1977. They approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 28749 of 2014, wherein this Court passed interim order directing the Sub-Registrar to receive, register and release the document without treating the said land as assigned land. Thereafter, in pursuance of the said direction, as many as 16 registrations took place. Now, the petitioners have purchased the same by paying entire sale consideration vide Document Nos. 5472 of 2015, 4532 of 2016 and 4533 of 2016 on 30.11.2015 and 26.10.2016 respectively. The petitioners approached the Sub-Registrar for alienation of the subject land. The Sub-Registrar refused to receive the sale documents stating that the Tahsildar sent a proposal to the District Collector on 13.07.2015. On request, a copy of the proceedings also furnished to the petitioners. On perusal of the same, it is revealed that the Tahsildar sent a list of lands situated in 28 villages of Tirupati Rural Mandal for notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. In the said list at Serial No. 174 and 175, the land in Survey No. 489/2a and 489/2b are mentioned as DKT and the names of their vendors' vendor namely Kilari Lalithamma and K. Kamalamma are mentioned. Based on the said proposal, the Sub-Registrar refused to receive the document which is not binding on the Sub-Registrar and unsustainable in law. 4. Sri A. Giridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that the action of the 4th respondent in refusing to receive, register and release the document presented by the petitioners in respect of the land extent Ac. 4.61 cents situated in Survey No. 489/2a and 489/2b is contrary to the earlier proceedings of the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal dated 20.06.2011, wherein the petitioners' vendors' vendors K. Lalithamma and K. Kamalamma were restored the lands under Section 3(5) of the Act 9 of 1977. Several registrations had taken place in respect of the land in pursuance of the orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 28749 of 2014 dated 30.10.2014. As on date, the land is no more assigned land and refusal for registration by the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and Act 9 of 1977. 5. As on date, the land is no more assigned land and refusal for registration by the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and Act 9 of 1977. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that the land is included in the prohibitory property list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and particulars of the land would not be available on the web portals and accordingly the petitioners were informed. He further submits that if the documents are presented to the Sub-Registrar, he would consider and pass reasoned orders under Section 71 of the Registration Act. 6. The submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader are untenable in view of the land ceased to be the assigned land. As per the proceedings of the then Tahsildar dated 20.06.2011 and earlier registration of the documents pertaining to the land in view of the orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 28749 of 2014 dated 30.10.2014. The writ petition was disposed on 29.01.2016 following the judgment of the Full Bench in Writ Appeal No. 343 of 2011 and batch. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of both the learned counsel, and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the land extent Ac. 4.61 cents situated in Survey No. 489/2 of Avilala Village was originally assigned land and the petitioners' vendors' vendors K. Lalithamma and K. Hari Prasad purchased the lands vide registered Document Nos. 3736 of 1976 and 3735 of 1976 dated 11.12.1976 for valuable consideration prior to the commencement of the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. The then Tahsildar, considering their case under Section 3(5) of the Act 9 of 1977, restored the land extent Ac. 4.61 cents as the transfer is saved under the provisions of Section 3(5) of the Act. In view of Section 3(5) of the Act 9 of 1977, the transactions took place before the commencement of the Act, the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 are not applicable to the land extent Ac. 4.61 cents situated in Survey No. 489/2 of Avilala Village and several transactions also took place. The petitioners purchased the land for valuable consideration vide registered Document Nos. 4.61 cents situated in Survey No. 489/2 of Avilala Village and several transactions also took place. The petitioners purchased the land for valuable consideration vide registered Document Nos. 5472 of 2015, 4532 of 2016 and 4533 of 2016 on 30.11.2015 and 26.10.2016 and this Court, in Writ Petition No. 28749 of 2014, directed the Sub-Registrar to receive, register and release the documents without treating the said land as assigned land. In view of the orders in Writ Petition No. 28749 of 2014, this Court came to the conclusion that in view of the earlier proceedings of the revenue authorities in respect of the land and registration of the documents would clinchingly prove that the lands are ceased to be the assigned land and provisions of the Act 9 of 1977 are not applicable. Hence, the action of the 4th respondent in refusing to receive, register and release the documents submitted by the petitioners in respect of the land on the ground that the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal by proceedings dated 13.07.2015 sent the proposal to the District Collector to notify the lands under Section 22-A of the Registration Act would not bind on the Sub-Registrar to refuse the same. Refusal of the documents by the Sub-Registrar is unsustainable in law. 8. Having regard to the above factual matrix of the case and submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court, in the interest of justice, felt it appropriate to direct the 4th respondent to receive, register and release the documents presented by the petitioners in respect of the land in Survey Nos. 489/2a and 489/2b admeasuring 785 Sq. yards and 580 Sq. yards situated at Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, without reference to the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 13.07.2015. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall also stand closed.