Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 330 (AP)

Guttula Subrahmanyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-06-04

M.GANGA RAO

body2021
JUDGMENT M Ganga Rao, J. - This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief/s: "...to issue an appropriate Writ more in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in including the lands of the petitioner in survey No.367 of Kolamuru Village, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District in the list of the Prohibitory lands under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, brushing aside the categorical recommendation of the Tahsildar, Rajamahendravaram Rural and which lands are recorded as Private lands for the last 87 years and the action of the Sub-Registrar in refusing to register the document presented before him, as being arbitrary, illegal and offending Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to delete the lands from list of Prohibitory lands under Section 22-A of Registration Act and to register the document as and when presented, in the interest of justice and issue such other Writ or order ..." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, he has purchased the land admeasuring 198 square yards forming part of survey No.367, situated at Kolamuru Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal of East Godavari District through registered sale deed documents bearing Nos.6215/2002, dated 10.12.2002 and 3210/2004 dated 14.05.2004 respectively registered in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Rajamahendravaram. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. When he presented the sale deeds before the respondent No.6-Sub-Registrar for registration of the land in favour of buyers, he was informed that the land in survey No.367, Kolamuru Village is included in the prohibited property list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and there is prohibition for the registration of the land. Then the petitioner made a mee-seva application to the respondent No.2-District Collector for deletion of the subject property land from the prohibited property list. On his application the respondent No.5-Tahsildar submitted a report dated 06.08.2019 stating that, "the total of an extent of Ac 11.68 cents in survey No.367 of Kolamuru Village of Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal is classified as "Government Poramboke" and mentioned as "Kankara Gutta Sthalam" in remarks column. On his application the respondent No.5-Tahsildar submitted a report dated 06.08.2019 stating that, "the total of an extent of Ac 11.68 cents in survey No.367 of Kolamuru Village of Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal is classified as "Government Poramboke" and mentioned as "Kankara Gutta Sthalam" in remarks column. Later the same total extent of Ac 11.68 cents in survey No.367 of Kolamuru Village of Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal was re-classified as "Government Dry" and assigned to "Sri Chavali Rama Murthy Sastry" during the year, 1933 and the changes were incorporated in the A-Register as per East Godavari Collector's Kakinada vide R.Dis.2459/1933, dated 19.05.1933". The assignment of the land was made in the year 1933 as per G.O.Ms.No.575 Revenue (Assnt-I) Department, dated 16.11.2018, wherein the Government directed the revenue authorities to remove the lands which were assigned prior to the year 1954 from the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Accordingly, the respondent No.5-Tahsildar vide Ref(B) 160/2019 dated 06.08.2019 recommended to remove the land to the total extent of Ac 11.68 cents in survey No.367 of Kolamuru Village of Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal from the prohibited properties in Annexure-II under Section 22A(1)(b) of Registration Act, 1908. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2-District Collector, without considering the report submitted by the respondent No.5-Tahsildar, issued an endorsement rejecting the petitioner's application by blindly referring to the proceedings E/2134/2019 dated 07.08.2019 of the respondent No.3-Sub-Collector, wherein he stated that, "the webland records, in respect of the subject land was entered as Government land and noted as Kankaragutta land. The changes in "A" Register regarding assignment of the subject land in the year of 1933 is only recorded evidence and it is not enough to delete the land from the prohibited properties list under section 22-A. The subject land will be deleted from the prohibited properties list only after the verification of assignment proceedings of D patta copy. Finally, the Sub-Collector, Rajamahendravaram has recommended for rejection of the above mee-seva application. In view of the above, the above Mee-seva application is hereby rejected". Hence, the rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground that the land shown as Government land in webland record is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence on record. 5. Finally, the Sub-Collector, Rajamahendravaram has recommended for rejection of the above mee-seva application. In view of the above, the above Mee-seva application is hereby rejected". Hence, the rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground that the land shown as Government land in webland record is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence on record. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps appearing for the respondents stated that the subject land is government land as per webland records and after thorough verification of the assignment proceedings of D-form patta, the subject land will be deleted from the prohibited property list. Hence, the rejection of the Mee-seva application of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions of the counsel and a perusal of the record, this Court found that as per the recommendation of the respondent No.5 dated 06.08.2019 the land in survey No.367, situated at Kolamuru Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal of East Godavari District was re-classified as Government Dry and assigned to Sri Chavali Rama Murthy Sastry in the year, 1933 and the changes were incorporated in the A-Register vide East Godavari Collector's Kakinada vide R.Dis.2459/1933, dated 19.05.1933. The respondent No.3 in reference to proceedings E/2134/2019 dated 07.08.2019 submitted that the subject land will be deleted from the prohibited properties list only after verification of the assignment proceedings of D-patta copy. The respondent No.2- District Collector, instead of considering the petitioner's mee-seva application in its proper perspective and objectively as per the law, simply rejected the application which is illegal and arbitrary. The endorsement of the respondent No.2-District Collector vide L.Dis-REV-ESCCOLAS(NOC)84/2019-SA(ES)-CL-O-EG dated 08.08.2019 is declared as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence on record. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.575, Revenue (Assign.I) Department dated 16.11.2018 authorizing the District Collector to delete the Government lands assigned prior to 18.06.1954 from the purview of the provisions of section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Despite the directions issued by the Government by way of G.O.Ms.No.575, dated 16.11.2018, the respondents are still continuing the lands assigned prior to 1954 in the prohibited property list which is illegal and arbitrary. 7. Despite the directions issued by the Government by way of G.O.Ms.No.575, dated 16.11.2018, the respondents are still continuing the lands assigned prior to 1954 in the prohibited property list which is illegal and arbitrary. 7. In similar circumstances, this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.1418 of 2020, dated 27.01.2020 directed the respondents therein to complete the process of deletion of the subject property from the prohibited property list in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.575, dated 16.11.2018. This Court on perusal of the record found that the respondent No.2-District Collector without considering the land records and the recommendations of the respondent No.5, simply rejected the application of the petitioner for deletion of his land from the prohibited property list stating that, as seen from the webland records, the subject land was entered as Government land and noted as Kankaragutta land. The respondent No.2-District Collector would not have been carried away by the webland record which is contrary to the revenue records available before him by stating that the subject land will be deleted from the prohibited properties list only after verification of assignment proceedings of D-form patta and moreover he did not even take into consideration the G.O.Ms.No.575, dated 16.11.2018 and issued an endorsement dated 08.08.2019 illegally. Therefore, the respondent No.2-District Collector is directed to re-consider the petitioner's mee-seva application by considering the recommendations of the respondent No.5 and other revenue records and pass appropriate reasoned order of deletion of the petitioner's land from the prohibited property list as per law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the Writ is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.