Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pasupuleti Bala Gangadhar vs State Of A.P., Reptd., By Its Principal ... on 4 March, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 ANDHRA PRADESH 132, AIRONLINE 2013 AP 82, (2013) 4 ANDHLD 426
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.6270 of 2013
04.03.2013
Pasupuleti Bala Gangadhar
State of A.P., reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and
Registration) Department, Hyderabad and two others.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sita Ram Chaparla
Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue
<Gist:
>Head Note:
?CITATIONS:
2013(2)ALD 1
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order, dated 18.01.2013, of respondent No.2, whereby he has refused to register the sale deed sought to be presented by the petitioner in respect of house property admeasuring Ac.0.09 cents comprised in Survey No.272/2 of Avanigadda Revenue Village and Mandal, Krishna District.
I have heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the only ground on which respondent No.2 refused to register the sale deed sought to be presented by the petitioner is the purported communication, dated 16.08.2010, through which respondent No.3 informed him that the above-mentioned property is included in the list of prohibited properties.
The petitioner pleaded that the above-mentioned land was initially assigned to a private party on 14.12.1933; that the legal heirs of the assignee sold the same under registered sale deed, dated 06.09.2000, in favour of one Simhadri Srinivasa Rao, who is stated to have constructed a building over the said land and availed a loan from the State Bank of India, Agricultural Development Branch, Avanigadda (for short 'the bank'); and that in view of the default committed by Simhadri Srinivasa Rao, owner of the said property, the same was put to auction, in which one Repalle Venkata Ramanjaneyulu has purchased it and registered sale deed, dated 31.05.2008, was executed in his favour by the bank. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that the said purchaser has obtained loan from the bank and he has also committed default and that for recovery of the loan amount, the property was once again put to auction, in which the petitioner purchased it. When the petitioner and the bank presented the sale deed for registration, consequent on the auction, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order. The petitioner has filed the sale deed and the relevant material in support of the above-noted averments.
In an elaborate judgment in Raavi Satish Vs. Andhra Pradesh and others1, this Court held that mere inclusion of the properties in the prohibitory list by the revenue authorities would not deter the Registering Officers from registering the documents and that such prohibitory list cannot be elevated to the status of a statutory notification under Section 22-A (2) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act'). This Court also held that if assignments were made prior to 18.06.1954, on which date G.O.Ms.No.1104 was issued envisaging prohibition of transfer of assigned lands for the first time, the Registering Officers shall not refuse to register the document(s) only on the ground that the lands covered by the said document(s) are assigned lands. In the instant case, what this Court is unable to comprehend is that if the property in question is not a private property and belongs to "Police Diary", as described in the purported prohibitory list of respondent No.3, how the State and its executive apparatus have allowed the property to be transferred under two registered sale deeds dated 06.09.2000 and dated 31.05.2008. The sale deed last registered was as recent as 31.05.2008. The revenue authorities need to show proper responsibility in preparing the so-called prohibitory list and they cannot be oblivious of the previous history of the property and solely guided by the so-called entries in the records such as Resurvey and Settlement register. As held in Raavi Satish (supra), mere registration of the property will not create title in the purchaser and that if the vendor has no title in the property, the purchaser will not derive any title only on account of registration and that registration of a document will not absolve the vendor and the purchaser from the legal proceedings that may be initiated by the State for recovery of possession of the land, if the same is proved to belong to the Government.
The uncontroverted facts noted above amply prove that both respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not only ignored the settled legal position but also the ground realities in dealing with the property in question. Though this Court ordinarily relegates the parties to a statutory appeal under Section 72 of the Act, having regard to the exceptional and undeniable facts of this case, it is not appropriate to throw out the Writ Petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.
For the above-mentioned reasons, respondent No.2 is directed to register the sale deed executed by the bank in favour of the petitioner in respect of the above-mentioned property, subject to the parties therein complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
As observed hereinbefore, registration of the sale deed is without prejudice to the right of the State to initiate steps, in the event, it finds any material to show that the property belongs to the Government.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.7830 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. Gracious ____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 04th March, 2013