Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B.Venkata Ramana Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 September, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.5709 OF 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5 th respondent in entertaining documentation and registration of land in the Sy.No.264/4 of Tiruchanur Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District even though there is no subdivision number of 264/4 as per the revenue record in spite of the proceedings of the 4th respondent in Memo No.G/931/2016 dt.03.09.2016 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act and consequently direct the 4th respondent to forthwith stop further registrations in the alleged no-nest Sy.No.264/4 of Tiruchanur Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District by directing action by the 2nd respondent against the 4th respondent as per the provisions of Indian Registration Act."
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Tirupathi vide Proceedings No.138/85.1.DT.No.1/83, dt.23.10.1985 granted Rytowari Patta in favour of M.Kuppuswamy Naidu and accordingly the patta was implemented in the revenue record by mutating his name and issued 1-B Register. The said Kuppuswamy Naidu has executed a Registered Will dated 21.09.1998 in favour of his daughter Smt.Lakshmi Devi bequeathing his properties covered by Rythowari Patta. Subsequent to the death of Kuppuswamy Naidu dated 11.11.2019, the Registered Will dated 21.09.1998 came into operation and Lakshmi Devi was become absolute owner of the property and she had executed a Registered Gift Deed dated 08.03.2016 in favour of third party to an extent of 546 sq. feet and divided the remaining land into plots in Sy.No.265/2 and 264/2 and as such the petitioner purchased the property in Sy.No.265/2 and 264/2. Since there is no sub-division of Sy.No.264 into 264/4 by the revenue authorities, some local people MSM,J WP_5709_2021 2 who wanted to grab the land, with the support of the political leaders tried to manipulate in the revenue department and created Sy.No.264/4 and started alienating the land mentioned in Sy.No.264/2 and 265/2 as if they are in Sy.No.264/4. In that context, petitioner issued a notice dated 29.04.2016 to respondent No.5, also to higher officials to restrain them from registering any document in view of the false Sy.No.264/4 is mentioned and for which respondent No.4 issued instructions to respondent No.5 not to entertain any registrations. Respondent No.5 in defiance of the directions of respondent No.4 still entertained certain documents, therefore respondent No.2 issued a Memo No.G2/8017/2018, dt.20.12.2018 directing respondent No.4 to enquire into the matter and to submit the report. However, for the best reasons known to respondent No.4, he did not file any report. Respondent No.2 is fully aware as per the letter addressed by the petitioner that some unknown persons by creating Sy.No.264/4 in collusion with respondent No.5 registering documents but did not initiate any steps to conduct any enquiry, requested to grant relief as claimed in the petition.
During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition and requested to issue a direction to respondent No.5 not to entertain any sale deed that may be presented by the 3rd parties in respect of the subject land.
Whereas the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps contended that as per Registration Act, 1908, the sub-Registrar can refuse registration of documents only in few circumstances contained under Sections 22- A, 22-B, 35(3) and MSM,J WP_5709_2021 3 71 of the Registration Act,1908, requested to dismiss the Writ Petition.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that he got issued a notice dated 29.04.2016 to respondent No.5 not to make any registration pertaining to the subject land in view of the false Sy.No.264/4, and to take note of illegal transactions. But respondent No.5 did not act upon the notice issued by the petitioner. The Sub- Registrar, respondent No.5 cannot refuse registration of the document presented before him unless the subject property is included in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act,1908 or under Section 35(3) and 71 of the Registration Act,1908. As the subject land is not attracted by any of these provisions of the Registration Act, 1903, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register documents, if any, presented relating to the subject land. Therefore, this Court cannot issue a direction to the respondents as claimed by the petitioner as it is beyond the scope of various provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
Hence, I find no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 15.09.2021 Ksp