Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1404 (AP)

Parvathaneni Rambabu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-10-20

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2023
ORDER 1. The petitioner purchased land of an extent of Ac.6-50 cents in R.S.Nos.1/1BA/1 to 10 of Gonnepalli Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District (for short 'subject land'), from his vendors - Smt. Sadhu Mariyamma and 9 others under different registered sale deeds. The vendors of this petitioner obtained loans and purchased the subject property under a scheme evolved by Respondent No.4 - District Scheduled Caste Service Cooperative Society (for short 'the Society'). According to the scheme, the loans have to be repaid by the beneficiaries under the said scheme by way of installments. 2. The State Government issued G.O.Rt.No.492 Social Welfare (SCP.I) Department dated 07.07.2009 waiving the outstanding loans extended to the persons who obtained loans from the Society. By virtue of the waiver of the loans, the sale deeds were released in favour of the petitioner vendors and they in-turn sold the land in favour of the petitioner. 3. When the petitioner intended to sell the property, the Sub-Registrar, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District issued a Notification Roc.No.E1/4536/2013 dated 08.10.2015, wherein the subject land is enlisted in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of The Registration Act, 1908, on the ground that the lands are assigned in favour of the petitioner's vendors by the 4th respondent Scheduled Caste Corporation. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The Government recognized the petitioner's title, possession over the property, mutated his name, issued pattadar Passbooks and title deeds in his favour. When the petitioner approached Respondent No.5 to enquire about the details of market value, stamp duty etc, he informed that the subject property is included in the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. No notice was issued to the petitioners prior to inclusion of said property in the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. It is further contended that as the petitioner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, as such, the subject property cannot be included in the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 requested to de-notify the same. 5. It is further contended that as the petitioner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, as such, the subject property cannot be included in the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 requested to de-notify the same. 5. Respondent No.4 - Executive Director, District Scheduled Castes Service Cooperative Society Limited, West Godavari District, filed counter affidavit stating that, originally, land of an extent of Ac.6-48 cents was registered on 31.12.1998 by Sri Kokkirala Nageswara Rao in favour of ten Scheduled Caste landless agricultural labourers of Gonnepalli Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, under the land purchase scheme as welfare measure was implemented by the State Government. Thereafter, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to the beneficiaries to facilitate them for obtaining the crop loans and agricultural input subsidies. It is submitted that that the said Scheme is a Government Sponsored Scheme, as such the land cannot be sold contrary to the rules. In paragraph No.9, it is stated as follows: 'Loan waived. But this is purely Government sponsored Welfare Scheme to needy SC people, they cannot be sold contrary to the rules. Further the petitioner herein as sold away the above lands contrary to the rules and guidelines to Sri Parvathaneni Ramesh, s/o Satyanarayana, r/o Jagannadhapuram village, pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District through a sale deed dated 10.01.2017 is null and void and no-nest in the eye of law.' 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the vendors of the petitioner acquired patta land by paying consideration at market value and after repayment of loan amounts which were sanctioned by Respondent No.4, they became absolute owners of the property, as such, the said lands cannot be treated as 'Government Lands' nor 'Assigned Lands', therefore, the subject lands of the petitioner cannot be notified as 'government lands'/Assigned lands and cannot be included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of The Registration Act, 1908, unilaterally. 7. Learned counsel submits that, the subject lands which were acquired by the vendors of the petitioner were not acquired as per B.S.O 15, as such these lands are not amenable to be included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. 8. 7. Learned counsel submits that, the subject lands which were acquired by the vendors of the petitioner were not acquired as per B.S.O 15, as such these lands are not amenable to be included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. 8. Finally, learned counsel further submits that, while including the subject lands in the list of prohibited properties, the respondents did not follow due process of law and also did not observe principles of natural justice, as contemplated under the Act, therefore such unilateral action of the respondents is liable to be declared as illegal and arbitrary. 9. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration while reiterating the contentions urged in the counter affidavit, contends that, the subject lands were included in the list of prohibited properties after following due procedure. The vendors of the petitioner were the exclusive possessors and beneficiaries of these lands under the land purchasing scheme. Subsequently, they sold these lands to the petitioner and transferred the title over the property through registered sale deeds. 10. Learned Government Pleader drawn attention of this Court to the Document dated 31.12.1998 relating to sale of immovable property, executed by one Nageswara Rao s/o Kokkirala Chinna Pullaiah in favour of one Smt. Raghavulu w/o Sadhu Lakshmayya, wherein the Executive Director, the West Godavari District Scheduled Castes Services Cooperative Society Limited, Eluru imposed a condition which reads as follows: 'LOAN WAIVER. This is a Govt. Sponsored Scheme cannot be sold.'' 11. On the basis of the above condition imposed by the Executive Director, WGDSCSCS limited, learned Government Pleader submits that, in view of the condition imposed in the sale deed, the vendors are prohibited from alienating their property in favour of any third parties, since the scheme was designed for the welfare and advancement of members belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. But, contrary to the same, the vendors of the petitioner, having become absolute owners of their respective agricultural lands through the scheme, sold the said lands to the petitioner, defeating the object and purpose for which the scheme was meant for. But, contrary to the same, the vendors of the petitioner, having become absolute owners of their respective agricultural lands through the scheme, sold the said lands to the petitioner, defeating the object and purpose for which the scheme was meant for. Therefore, the action of the respondents in including the subject lands in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 cannot be found fault with by this Court, as it is in accordance with law and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, leaned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and perused the material available on record. 13. It appears that, in accordance with the Land Purchasing Scheme, Respondent No.4 identified the vendors of this petitioner as eligible beneficiaries. Consequently, Respondent No.4 approved the sale consideration amount as a loan, enabling the vendors of the petitioner to acquire their respective lands through registered sale deeds. Upon reviewing the sale deeds, it is evident that the subject lands were acquired with absolute rights, including the right of transfer by the vendors of the petitioner. It is also acknowledged that, initially, the title deeds were pledged as collateral security in favor of Respondent No.4 for the loans obtained by the vendors of the petitioner. However, the respondents later waived-off these loans. Upon full and final repayment of the loans, Respondent No.4 released the title deeds to the vendors of the petitioner. As is customary, once the mortgage is redeemed, the mortgager assumes absolute ownership of the respective property. In the present case as well, following the release of the documents, the vendors of the petitioners became the undisputed owners and possessors of their respective lands, even though they had originally acquired them through the Land Purchasing Scheme. 14. Respondent No.4 - Society offered plots to the vendors of the petitioner, which were accepted by them, which is nothing but an agreement of sale (contract of sale) in terms of Section 54 of TP Act. This ultimately resulted in the conclusion of contract by way of execution of sale deed by third parties in favour of the vendors of the petitioner. This ultimately resulted in the conclusion of contract by way of execution of sale deed by third parties in favour of the vendors of the petitioner. When once the contract is concluded, the allotment conditions or covenants of agreement of sale ordinarily cannot be enforced having regard to various provisions of Transfer of Property Act, Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Registration Act, 1908 and Specific Relief Act, 1963, which govern the transfer of immovable property from one person to another person. The sale agreement does not survive when once the contract is concluded on execution of registered sale deed resulting in alienation, conveyance, assignment and transfer of title. Any contrary view would be opposed to the Civil Code of India. 15. Chapter II of TP Act contains two parts. Part A deals with transfer of property whether -movable' or -immovable' and part B deals with transfer of -movable' property. 16. As per Section 5 thereof transfer is defined as conveyance of property from one living person to one or more living persons. Section 6 of TP Act declares that property of any kind may be transferred except the one, which is prohibited. Section 6(h) of TP Act inter alia prohibits transfer, which is opposed to the nature of interest effected thereby or for an unlawful object or consideration within the meaning of Section 23 of Contract Act. Sections 8, 10 and 11 of TP Act attach sanctity and solemnity to a transfer of immovable property and read as under 8. Operation of transfer.-Unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, a transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is then capable of passing in the property and in the legal incidents thereof. Operation of transfer.-Unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, a transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is then capable of passing in the property and in the legal incidents thereof. Such incidents include, where the property is land, the easements annexed thereto, the rents and profits thereof accruing after the transfer, and all things attached to the earth; and, where the property is machinery attached to the earth the movable parts thereof; and, where the property is a house, the easements annexed thereto, the rent thereof accruing after the transfer, and the locks, keys, bars, doors, windows and all other things provided for permanent use therewith; and, where the property is a debt or other actionable claim, the securities therefor (except where they are also for other debts or claims not transferred to the transferee), but not arrears of interest accrued before the transfer; and, where the property is money or other property yielding income, the interest or income thereof accruing after the transfer takes effect. 9. Condition restraining alienation.-Where property is transferred subject to a condition or limitation absolutely restraining the transferee or any person claiming under him from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property, the condition or limitation is void except in the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor or those claiming under him: Provided that property may be transferred to or for the benefit of a woman (not being a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist), so that she shall not have power during her marriage to transfer or charge the same for her beneficial interest therein. 11. Restriction repugnant to interest created.-Where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created absolutely in favour of any person, but the terms of the transfer direct that such interest shall be applied or enjoyed by him in a particular manner, he shall be entitled to receive and dispose of such interest as if there were no such direction. Restriction repugnant to interest created.-Where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created absolutely in favour of any person, but the terms of the transfer direct that such interest shall be applied or enjoyed by him in a particular manner, he shall be entitled to receive and dispose of such interest as if there were no such direction. Where any such direction has been made in respect of one piece of immovable property for the purpose of securing the beneficial enjoyment of another piece of such property, nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any right which the transferor may have to enforce such direction or any remedy which he may have in respect of a breach thereof. 17. Thus when transfer is completed (on execution of sale deed in case of immovable property) any restriction contained in the transfer deed disentitling the transferee from operating or disposing of his interest would be void and even when such a restriction is created, transferee can enjoy the property ignoring the same. In view of Section 4 of TP Act, all the provisions relating to contracts shall apply to TP Act and, therefore, any transfer or conveyance incorporating restraint clauses would be void and the purchaser can ignore such clauses. 18. In similar circumstances, in A.B.C. India Limited vs. The A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, W.P.No.7320 of 2006 & batch 16.07.2010 the learned single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that, any transfer or conveyance incorporating restraint clauses would be void. Thereupon, the matter was carried by way of appeals in W.A.No.874 of 2011 dated 01.12.2012, wherein the Division Bench affirmed the order passed by the learned single Judge and held that, once the deeds of sale were executed by the vendor in favour of the vendee, by virtue of which, all the rights and interests on the property, are transferred to the vendees, then the vendees have acquired absolute rights to make use of the property in question. Thereafter, the respondents, carried the matters to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeals, in Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited vs. S.N. Raj Kumar and another, (2018) 6 SCC 410 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the orders passed by the Division Bench and learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter, the respondents, carried the matters to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeals, in Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited vs. S.N. Raj Kumar and another, (2018) 6 SCC 410 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the orders passed by the Division Bench and learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Thus the order passed by the learned single Judge has attained finality. 19. Hence, when the sale deed contains no conditions, the conditions specified in the scheme are inoperative, as they were not mentioned as requirements in the sale deed. In cases where the sale deed is devoid of any conditions, re-imposition of such conditions essentially amounts to taking away the absolute rights of the beneficiaries. Once a beneficiary has been granted absolute rights through a sale deed, these rights should not be infringed upon based on subsequent restrictions, such as non-alienation or transfer. 20. The land that can be made available under the Land Pooling Scheme can also be identified for alienation of the land to the Below Poverty Line people. But, there is a difference between grant of patta and alienation of land. The alienation cannot be equated with an assignment. When once the Government proposes to alienate the land by executing a deed of conveyance, collecting registration fee and stamp duty, it is outright sale of the property by executing deed of conveyance. Therefore, it is only a sale of property and the original pattadar or his/her legal heirs are entitled to alienate the property, as no such restriction was imposed prohibiting alienation of the property. 21. In view of my foregoing discussion, writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of the respondent authorities in notifying the land in Sy.No.1/1B-1 to 10 admeasuring an extent of Ac.6-50 cents stiauted at Gonnepalli Village, Chinthalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District as 'Assigned Lands'. Further the Sub-Registrar, Chinthalapudi Sub-Division, West Godavari District is directed to register the sale deeds, if any presented by the petitioners, in accordance with law, after complying the necessary formalities under Stamps and Registration Act. 22. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.