Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Cochi Seshagiri, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 June, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.9654 OF 2021
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 inaction of the 3rd respondent in considering the petitioner's representation dated 15.03.2021 for deletion of his property admeasuring an extent of Ac.87-37 ½ cents situated in Sy.Nos.13, 15, 17/2, 17/3, 17/5 in Avilala Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandalam, Chittoor District from the prohibited property list under Section 22(A)(1)(c) of Registration Act, 1908 as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently command the respondents to delete the subject property from prohibited property list forthwith in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.174.75 cents in Avilala Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandalam, Chittoor District. The property was an Inam land acquired by the Cochi family from the Raja of Travancore. A portion of half extent of the same was given on lease to Buggamatham by the ancestors of petitioners on 23.12.1856. On the even date, they sold the remaining half extent of land i.e., Ac.87-37 ½ cents to the Bugga Mutt. The title deed No.2937 dated 04.07.1883 issued by the Inam Commissioner while holding that, Sri Bugga Mutt, Tirupathi and Cochi family held joint patta for the subject property. The names of our 2 ancestors are also found in Inam Fair Register and Survey Settlement Register of Avilala Village.
3. The Bugga Mutt, Tirupathi sold an extent of Ac.87-37 ½ cents in favour of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt (herein referred as SSH Mutt), Tirupathi vide sale deed No.985/1884. On even date, they also sold remaining extent of Ac.87-37 ½ cents in favour of SSH Mutt without having any manner of right.
4. The Joint Collector, Chittoor in the Gazette notification dated 29.12.1989 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners were shown as pattadars and the SSH Mutt is shown as permanent lessee, but it was included in prohibitory list of properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and despite the representation it was not deleted from the list.
5. During hearing, Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the Writ Petition, whereas the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration would contend that unless an application is made through Mee seva as per rules, the same cannot be considered by the competent authority i.e., District Collector under Section 22-A of the Act for deletion of such properties from the Prohibited Property Register, in the absence of any such application, complying necessary formalities, like payment of fee for such deletion etc., Hence, the inaction of the 3rd respondent/District Collector cannot be declared as illegal and arbitrary, as the 3rd respondent/District Collector is not under obligation to attend to such applications/representations as they are not in compliance with the rules framed under the Act and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition.
3
6. As seen from the record, undoubtedly, the property was purchased by the petitioner and his name is mutated in the revenue records as per the Adangals and Photostat copy of registered sale deed placed on record. Therefore, the petitioner allegedly became the owner of the property and the legality of purchase cannot be decided in the present petition in view of the limited jurisdiction of this Court. But, the prayer discloses that the reason for inclusion of the property in Prohibited Property Register published under Section 22-A of the Act is that it was an assigned land and transfer of it is prohibited under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977). Moreover, when the application of the petitioner itself is not in accordance with the rules, the 3rd respondent/District Collector is not competent to pass any order. Hence, the inaction of the respondents cannot be declared as illegal and arbitrary. However, liberty may be given to the petitioner to make appropriate application through Mee seva by paying the requisite fee for attending the application as per the rules framed under the Act and on filing such application through Mee seva, the 3rd respondent/District Collector is under obligation to consider such application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Therefore, I find no ground to issue such positive direction as sought for, while granting liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application through Mee seva on payment of requisite fee of such application for deletion of the property in dispute, from the Prohibited Property Register published under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
4
7. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit appropriate application through Mee seva on payment requisite fee for deletion of property from the Prohibited Property Register published under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 subject to permissibility under the Act. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 15.06.2021 VSL 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.9654 OF 2021 Date: 15.06.2021 VSL