Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 3 (AP)

C. Gangi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-01-02

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2023
ORDER : 1. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the action of the 5th respondent-Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, Chittoor District, in refusing to register the Sale Deed, dated 25.10.2018, executed in favour of the petitioner for the lands in an extent of Acres 0.95 cents in Survey No.158/2 and Acres 0.69 cents in Survey No.158/2A of Karakambadi Group, Yerragunta Village, Renigunta Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the 5th respondent to register the said sale deed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, as per the revenue records an extent of Ac.73.82 cents of land adjoining Karakambadi tank is classified as patta land, but in the remarks column it was mentioned as ‘Karakambadi Cheruvu Neeti Mumpu”, which means that the said lands would sub-merge, if the water level of the adjoining tank increases. The 2nd respondent-District Collector has treated the aforesaid remark as ‘Tank Bed land’ and thus concluded that the same is Government land and declared the said lands as tank and directed the revenue staff to make necessary correction in the village accounts under his order dated 21.04.2010. It is the further case of the petitioner that, before issuing the said order, the 2nd respondent has given notices only to the persons covering an extent of Ac.23.09 cents though the land referred to in the said order is an extent of Ac.73.82 cents. The persons to whom notices were issued and whose pattas were cancelled, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.11327 of 2010 and obtained interim orders. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was allowed setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent, with a direction to issue proper notice. It is the further case of the petitioner that, by the time the vendor of the petitioner came to know about the said order dated 21.04.2010, the 6th respondent deleted the names of pattadars in respect of Ac.73.82 cents of land and changed classification of the lands to Government land, without any notice to the owners, including the petitioner’s vendor or their predecessor in title though their names were reflected in the revenue records as pattadars. The further case of the petitioner is that, though the Writ Petition No.11327 of 2010 was filed only by one of the pattadars, who own Ac.23.09 cents, the said judgment applies to the entire Ac.73.82 cents. The further case of the petitioner is that, though the Writ Petition No.11327 of 2010 was filed only by one of the pattadars, who own Ac.23.09 cents, the said judgment applies to the entire Ac.73.82 cents. However, the respondent-authorities have reversed the entries in revenue records only in respect of Ac.23.09 cents and maintained the classification in respect of the remaining extent as Government land. It is the further case of the petitioner that, without any notification by the Government, the 4th respondent-District Registrar has communicated to the Registration Department that the subject lands are Government lands and registration of documents is prohibited in respect of these lands and basing on the said communication, when no transactions were registered, several Writ Petitions were filed wherein this Court has directed the respondents to register the documents and subsequently, the 1st respondent also has declared that the subject lands are private lands and registrations can be done, but registration is objected in case of the petitioner alone. It is the further case of the petitioner that, subsequent to the order of this Court in W.P.No.11327 of 2010, the Joint Collector issued notices to some land owners and issued an Endorsement dated 19.12.2011 stating that the subject lands are tank bed lands. Aggrieved by the same the said land owners preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals wherein an adverse order dated 22.05.2013 was passed. Questioning the said order, the land owners preferred revision on 25.04.2016. After elaborate enquiry, the 1st respondent-Principal Secretary Revenue Department passed an order dated 25.04.2016 setting aside the orders of the Commissioner of Appeal as well as of the Joint Collector and held that the property is a private land. It is the further case of the petitioner that, subsequent to the orders of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th respondents to the effect that the subject lands are private lands and made corrections in the revenue records, the 2nd respondent-District Collector communicated a prohibition list wherein Survey Nos.158/2 and 158/2A are not included and the said list is very much available with the Sub-Registrar. However, the Sub-Registrar is not entertaining registration of the subject property. As such, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. To the said Writ Petition, the 5th respondent-Sub-Registrar as well as the 6th respondent-Tahsildar filed their respective counters. However, the Sub-Registrar is not entertaining registration of the subject property. As such, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. To the said Writ Petition, the 5th respondent-Sub-Registrar as well as the 6th respondent-Tahsildar filed their respective counters. The 5th respondent-Sub-Registrar in his counter denied the allegations, inter alia, contending that the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps issued Memo.No/G1/9732/2013, dated 17.07.2013, stating that the particulars of the seller should match with the particulars in the web land provided by the Revenue Department wherein the name of the person in whose name the property stands is reflected. Subsequently, the Commissioner and Inspector General issued another Circular Memo. No. G1/1249/2012, dated 25.06.2016, stating that the registration of property shall be made on the basis of the entries made in the Record of Rights maintained electronically and web land data shall be consumed as a part of the document. Further, it is stated that, the Sub-Registrar is bound by the Stamps and Registration Act and the instructions given by the authorities from time to time and in view of the same, passed orders dated 14.12.2018 under Section 71 of the Registration Act, refusing registration of the documents and in the said order it was clearly mentioned that appeal against the said refusal order lies to the District Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, within 30 days of the order. In spite of the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. As such, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. The 6th respondent-Tahsildar in his counter contended that, pursuant to the Memos dated 16.11.2017 and 04.06.2018 and orders of the 1st respondent dated 25.04.2016, the classification of the land to an extent of Ac.25.05 cts in Survey Nos.167-P and 168-P of Yerragunta Village and Survey Nos.170-P, 340-P, 341-P and 342-P of Karakambadi Village was changed from ‘Cheruvu’ to ‘patta’. But, the classification in respect of the subject land was not changed as no statutory appeal was preferred against Endorsement R.Dis.F1/6587/2005 dated 21.04.2010 and order R.Dis.F1/6587/2005 dated 19.12.2011 issued by the Joint Collector, restoring the land with the original classification i.e. ‘tank bed’. Therefore, the request of the petitioner to register the subject lands in his name could not be considered as the land is still classified as ‘Cheruvu Neeti Mumpu’. As such, the present Writ Petition cannot be considered and prayed to dismiss the same. 4. Therefore, the request of the petitioner to register the subject lands in his name could not be considered as the land is still classified as ‘Cheruvu Neeti Mumpu’. As such, the present Writ Petition cannot be considered and prayed to dismiss the same. 4. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that in the prohibitory list that is available with the Sub-Registrar, the lands of petitioner do not find place, the same is placed on record and drawn the attention of this Court. He further contended that, the Government has categorically stated in the revision orders, dated 25.04.2016, that the Joint Collector has treated the lands as Tank bed lands whereas the lands are shown as Sub-merged in tank and there is a clear distinction between the lands which are part of the tank and the lands which may come under submergence on certain occasions. The lands which come under submergence cannot be treated as Tank bed lands automatically. The Joint Collector has quoted various orders of this Court which are applicable to the tank bed lands only. It is further brought to the notice of this court that, in the said order since the land is being treated as private land and there was no objection from any officer of the Department till the adverse news item appeared in the local papers, the action of the authorities appears to be a panic reaction to the said adverse report and accordingly, the said authority has treated the land as part of the tank though it was not true. Accordingly, the revisional authority has allowed the revision while setting aside the orders of the Commissioner of appeals dated 22.05.2013 and orders of the Joint Collector, Chittoor District, dated 19.12.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew the attention of this Court to the report of the 6th respondent, dated 20.03.2018 wherein the Tahsildar sent communication to the District Collector recommending to withdraw the rest of Ac.47.84 cents (out of Ac.73.62 cents, Ac.25.75 cents were already withdrawn from the prohibitory list) of Erragunta and Karakambadi Villages in Renigunta Mandal from the prohibitory list. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in spite of the fact that the petitioner’s lands are not shown in the prohibitory list that is placed on record, which is very much available with the Sub-Registrar, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the subject lands. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner is not at all required to file an appeal because the Revenue Authorities decided and classified the petitioner’s land as private land. In those circumstances, the ground on which the Sub-Registrar is not entertaining the Registration is unwarranted and unsustainable and therefore, prayed to consider the case of the petitioner. 6. Learned Government Pleader, while reiterating what has been stated in the counters, submitted that he has received written instructions also on 20.12.2022 and contended that the petitioner’s land is still classified as ‘Cheruvu Mumpu’ and therefore, the petitioner’s vendor has no right to sell the above land to the petitioner. As such, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. A perusal of the record shows that, the subject property of the petitioner is not mentioned in the prohibitory lands list, which is filed along with the Writ Petition. Further, the revisionsal authority has passed orders dated 25.04.2016 setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Appeals and of the Joint Collector, dated 22.05.2012 and 19.11.2011, respectively. On a perusal of the said proceedings, it is seen that, since beginning the subject land i.e. entire Ac.73.82 cents, which includes petitioner’s land, is being treated as private land. In the said order though the petitioner’s land is not specifically mentioned, the classification of the petitioner’s land also comes under the same category. In the said order categorical findings have been given, which reads as follows: (i) The Joint Collector has treated the lands as ‘Tank bed land’ whereas the lands are shown as ‘Karakambadi Neeti Mumpu’ (Submergible in tank). There is a clear distinction between the lands which are part of the tank and the lands which may come under submergence on certain occasions. The lands which come under submergence cannot be treated as Tank bed land automatically. . . . . (ii) . . . . . . (iii) Since beginning the land has been treated as private land and there was no objection from any officer of the Department till the adverse news item appeared in the local papers. The lands which come under submergence cannot be treated as Tank bed land automatically. . . . . (ii) . . . . . . (iii) Since beginning the land has been treated as private land and there was no objection from any officer of the Department till the adverse news item appeared in the local papers. The action of the authorities appears to be a panic reaction to the adverse report.” As per the latest instructions, which are placed before this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioner’s land is still shown in the webland data as ‘Karakambadi Cheruvu Neeti Mumpu’. Even when the 1st respondent has categorically held that ‘Karakambadi Cheruvu Neeti Mumpu’ cannot be treated as tank bed, the authorities are still treating ‘Karakambadi Cheruvu Neeti Mumpu’ as tank bed. In view of the same, the petitioner has to get the classification of his land changed by making an appropriate application to the authorities concerned. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition with the following direction: (i) The petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation by raising all the grounds that are raised before this Court in the present Writ Petition along with the supporting material to the 2nd respondent- District Collector within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and (ii) On such representation, the 2nd respondent-District Collector is directed to take up the said representation, duly taking into consideration the orders passed in Revision Petition No.26086/ER&AR/A1/2013, dated 25.04.2016 and proceedings of the Tahsildar Roc.B/1445/2005 dated 19.02.2018 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of eight (08) weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.