Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 473 (AP)

Syed. Khairunnissa v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-07-26

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2021
ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief : “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in including the petitioners patta lands in an extent of Ac. 0.85 cents in Sy.No. 258, Ac. 0.04 cents in Sy.No. 259/1, Ac.1.05 cents, (out of Ac 3 32 cents) in Sy No 259/2, Ac 0.06 cents in Sy.No. 259/3 and Ac.1.40 cents (out of Ac 3.15 cents) in Sy.No.247/B in total Ac 3.40 cents situated in T.P.Gudur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in the prohibitory list, without there being publication of District Gazette and without notice to the petitioner and in insisting the petitioner to produce No Objection Certificate from the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioner in respect of the above property and release the same after due registration without insisting the no objection certificate from the 4th respondent and pass such other orders….” 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she is the owner of the land in an extent of Ac. 0.85 cents in Sy.No. 258, Ac. 0.04 cents in Sy.No. 259/1, Ac.1.05 cents, (out of Ac 3.32 cents) in Sy.No. 259/2, Ac 0.06 cents in Sy.No. 259/3 and Ac.1.40 cents (out of Ac 3.15 cents) in Sy.No.247/B in total Ac 3.40 cents situated in T.P.Gudur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, having purchased the same under a Registered Sale Deed vide document No. 1169 of 2004, dated 26.11.2004 from Muvva Mahesh Babu and another, since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Revenue authorities have also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour and her name is duly mutated in all revenue records. The Revenue authorities have also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour and her name is duly mutated in all revenue records. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner intended to dispose of the land and approached the 3rd respondent for registration of the document, who refused to receive the same and insisted her to submit “No Objection Certificate” from the 4th respondent, since the subject land is included in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as per directions of the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent issued an endorsement dated 23.07.2015 to that effect. Hence, the action of the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and the same is questioned in this writ petition and requested to issue a direction as stated supra. 3. No counter is filed by the respondents. None appeared for 4th respondent. 4. Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that when it is a private patta land, purchased under Registered Sale Deed, question of keeping the same in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, does not arise, in view of latter dated 02.02.2012 addressed by the 4th respondent for recovery of tax dues by Sale Tax Department to one Muvva Mahesh Babu, who is a partner of M/s The South-East Construction Company, Nidubrolu is illegal, arbitrary and the 4th respondent has no authority to issue such direction and 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to include the property in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A(e) of the Registration Act and requested to issue a direction. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration would submit that in view of the letter addressed by the 4th respondent, the Registrar did not receive and register the document, thereby there is no illegality in the action of the 3rd respondent and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration would submit that in view of the letter addressed by the 4th respondent, the Registrar did not receive and register the document, thereby there is no illegality in the action of the 3rd respondent and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. As seen from the material on record, the property was purchased by this petitioner under a Registered Sale Deed bearing document No. 1169 of 2004, dated 26.11.2004 for valid sale consideration and he intended to sell the property, executed a document and presented the same for registration, but the 3rd respondent refused to register the same, in view of the letter by the 4th respondent/Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-II (FAC) vide Rc.No.1/2012/A4, dated 02.02.2012 to the 3rd respondent with a request to the authority not to register the property in case of alienation to others in case the defaulter approaches for sale and to insist upon clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the reason for refusal is only a letter addressed by the 4th respondent to 3rd respondent stating that as there are tax dues by said M/s The South-East Construction Company, Nidubrolu, who fell in arrears of tax to a tune of Rs. 13,14,128/- for the year 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. Therefore, question of inclusion of the property in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, does not arise. As per clause (e) of sub-Section 1 of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, request of Sale Tax Department for collection of tax arrears is one of the ground to notify the property in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act. But, according to Sub- Section 2 a notice in Gazettee is mandatory, no such gazettee notification as mandated under sub-section 2 of Section 22-A(1)(e) was issued, thereby refusal to register on the above ground is illegal. 8. In fact, the property was sold by one Mr. Muvva Mahesh and Mavillapalli Ramanaiah by executing a registered sale deed dated 26.11.2004, but the letter was addressed on 02.02.2012, directing the Sub Registrar not to register the property to others, in case the defaulter approaches the office for registration of any document. 8. In fact, the property was sold by one Mr. Muvva Mahesh and Mavillapalli Ramanaiah by executing a registered sale deed dated 26.11.2004, but the letter was addressed on 02.02.2012, directing the Sub Registrar not to register the property to others, in case the defaulter approaches the office for registration of any document. Hence, question of defaulter approaching the office for registration of the document relating to the property does not arise in the year 2012 as the property was already sold about eight years ago i.e. prior to the letter dated 26.11.2004. Even otherwise, on the basis of such request, the 3rd respondent refused to register the document presented by petitioner is not in consonance with the provision section 22-A(1)(e) r/w sub-section 2 of the Registration Act. Therefore, the action of the 3rd respondent in refusing to receive and register the document, if it is otherwise in order is illegal and arbitrary. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in refusing to receive and register the document presented by the petitioner for registration in respect of the land in an extent of Ac. 0.85 cents in Sy.No. 258, Ac. 0.04 cents in Sy.No. 259/1, Ac.1.05 cents, (out of Ac 3 32 cents) in Sy No 259/2, Ac 0.06 cents in Sy.No. 259/3 and Ac.1.40 cents (out of Ac 3.15 cents) in Sy.No.247/B in total Ac 3.40 cents situated in T.P. Gudur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District is illegal and arbitrary and consequently 3rd respondent is directed to receive, register and process the document for registration, if presented by the petitioner to alienate the property as referred supra, subject to satisfying the other requirements under the Registration Act, notwithstanding the letter addressed by the 4th respondent. 10. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.