Telangana High Court
Syed Jaffar Ahmed vs The District Collector on 7 January, 2025
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ WRIT PETITION No.15955 of 2019
% Dated 07-01-2025
Between:
# Syed Jaffar Ahmed
... Petitioner
and
$ The District Collector,
Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool,
Hyderabad and others.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Vedula Venkatramana
^ Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for
Stamps and Registration
< GIST : ---
>HEAD NOTE : ---
? Cases referred: :
1. 2024 (1) ALT 272 (DB)
2. 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB)
NVSK, J
2 W.P. No.15955 of 2019
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
W.P. No.15955 of 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare that the Endorsement No.E5/531/2018 dated 26.04.2019 of the 1st respondent, District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, reaffirming that the subject land in Sy.No.8/2 admeasuring Acs.3.12 guntas situated in Jalpally village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject land') is prohibited from registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and not deleting it from the prohibitory list, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the said land as private patta land and also to direct the 2nd respondent, Sub-Registrar, Champapet, to entertain and register sale deeds in respect of the said land and release the same after due registration. Facts giving rise to filing this writ petition briefly stated as under:
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land having purchased the same from his vendor, Hafeez Abdul Lateef, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.2649 of 1998 dated 30.04.1998. The vendor of petitioner claims that he has got title under a faisal patti entry recorded in the name of Syed Sharfuddin Khadri, which is suffice to say that the subject land is a private land.
NVSK, J 3 W.P. No.15955 of 2019
3. While so, the petitioner, with an intention to sell the subject property, procured a prospective buyer and approached the 2nd respondent for enquiring about the registerability of the subject land and wherefrom he came to know that the subject land is included in prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and therefore, he applied for de-notification of the subject land from the Section 22-A of the Act and his request for de-notification has been rejected by the 1st respondent vide impugned Endorsement dated 26.04.2019 on the File No.E5/531/2018. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. On behalf of the respondent No.1, District Collector, while denying the writ averments, has filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the land to an extent of Acs.5.12 guntas in Sy.No.8 of Jalpally village was recorded as "Kharij Katha" lands (Sarkari) as per the Khasra Pahanie of the year 1954-55. His specific stand is that the Khasra Pahanie is considered to be a basic record of right prepared under Regulation No.4 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation 1358 Fasli. As per the Regulation 13 of the Regulations, any entry in the said record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. The 1358 Regulations were in force and the same were repealed by the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder. The Khasra prepared under the above said Regulations would disclose NVSK, J 4 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 the nature of the land, classification, extent and the Revenue cess payable to the Government and the name of enjoyer and pattedar's. Admittedly, the subject land was recorded in the Khasra Pahanie as "Kharij Katha" Sarkari, which denotes that the land originally belongs to Pattadars was accounted for remittance of revenue cist.
5. He would further submit that the entries recorded in the Khasra pahanie were continued up to 1955-58. Thereafter, in the pahanie for the year 1961-62, the classification of the land was mentioned as 'Kharij Katha Sarkari' and in possession column, the name of one Shareefuddin and others were mentioned as possessors. As per the pahanie 1963-64, Sy.No.8 was sub-divided with two survey numbers as Sy.No.8/1, to an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas and Sy.No.8/2 to an extent of Acs.3.12 guntas was recorded in the name of Shareefunnisa and Shareefuddin, who were shown as pattadar and possessors. As per the Faisal Patti 1961-62, it is revealed that Sy.Nos.8 to 12, to an extent of Acs.8.18 guntas are excluded from the kathas by sanctioning the patta in File No.D-1-5557/62. As per the entries in the Faisal Patti, an amount of Rs.6-4-0 Osmania Currency equivalent to Rs.5-36 of Indian Currency increased to Rs.9-38 NP., is sanctioned under 'Iftada Izaafa' by treating the said lands as Laoni Izafa lands.
6. He would further submit that the land tenure in Telangana region are governed under the provisions of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. Section 54 of the Act confers power on the Tahsildar to grant Occupancy Rights Certificate to a person who NVSK, J 5 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 occupied the Government land and paying cist which is commonly called as "Shivai Jamedar". The land assignments were governed by Laoni Rules. The Government of Hyderabad issued Laoni Rules, 1347 Fasli vide Gasthi No.19 of 1347 Fasli exercising powers under Section 172 of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. The said Rules were repealed vide Circular No.64, dated 16.11.1950 which came into force with effect from 07.12.1950. Subsequently, the Government issued Circular No.14 dated 08.11.1954 with an object to regularize the encroachments on Government land under the "Grow More Food Scheme" and on "Eksal laoni" only to facilitate the downtrodden community of the Society to eke out their livelihood by remitting the upset price of 16 times of land revenue. The said policy was replaced after formation of State of Andhra Pradesh while exercising the power under Section 122 of the State Reorganisation Act, issued under G.O.Ms.No.1270 Revenue dated 03.07.1957. The policies which were in existence in Telangana area were revised as per the new assignment policy enunciated in G.0.Ms.No.1406 Revenue dated 25.07.1958. As per the said policy, the assignees are entitled to cultivate the land for eking out livelihood and the same shall be heritable and not alienable. Admittedly, the land in Sy.No.8 was recorded as Government Kharij Katha land from 1954 Kahsra pahanie to till for the 1961-62 pahanies. The Faisal Patti which reflects the true nature of the land and its classification which also maintains the account relating to extent and tariff payable to the Government, and the entries made in the Faisal Patti depicts that Laoni Izafa has been NVSK, J 6 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 granted in favour of the alleged vendor of the petitioner in the year 1961-62. Therefore, the Laoni Izafa (Laoni sanction) was granted in favour of Shareefunnisa and Shareefuddin, to an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas and Acs.3.12 guntas for Sy. No.8/1 and 8/2, respectively, only in the year 1961 after the revised assignment policy came into force under G.O.Ms.No.1406 Revenue dated 25.07.1958 which prohibits alienation of assigned lands in favour of third parties. Therefore, eventually would submit that the allegation that the petitioner and the predecessors-in-interest are the absolute owners, is absolutely incorrect, and they have not filed any document in support of their right, title to the property which has been included in the prohibitory list
7. It is further submitted that since the property was recorded as Kharij Katha Sarkari land, and the said land was assigned as Laoni Izafa' as per the Faisal Patti 1961-62 conducting the phodi of the Sy.No.8, as such, the same was notified as prohibitory property under Section 22-A of the Act, and a communication, was addressed to the registering authorities not to entertain any sale deeds over the subject property. The petitioner, having purchased the prohibited property, has made an application on the file of the Joint Collector on 27.01.2018 requesting to issue No Objection Certificate for deletion of the said land from the list of prohibited properties. The respondent, after conducting a detailed enquiry and after verification of the Revenue records such as Khasra Pahanie, Faisal Patti, and Pahanies, NVSK, J 7 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 has issued an endorsement rejecting the request of the petitioner to delete the subject property from the prohibitory list.
8. It is further submitted that when the properties were prohibited for registration while exercising the powers under Section 22-A of the Act, the said action was assailed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A. No.343 of 2015 & batch, in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chari. The Full Bench of this Court, after hearing the matter at length, was pleased to formulate the guidelines for registration of the properties. As per the guidelines, the aggrieved party has given an option either to approach redressal mechanism or competent Civil Court either for seeking for appropriate declaration or deletion of the property / land from the list of prohibited properties. In compliance with the directions issued by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chari (W.A.No.343 of 2015), the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.185 dated 28.07.2016 constituting a Committee to consider grievance of the persons affected by the notification regarding prohibition of registration of lands. The Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4019 of 2018 vide order dated 19.04.2018, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 8 that the redressal mechanism constituted under Section 22-A (1) (e) also has to be examined while considering the writ petitions which were remitted to decide the vires of Section 22-A of the Act. In view of the serious disputes raised by the NVSK, J 8 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 petitioner that the subject land is patta land, contrary to the revenue record, which required elaborate evidence, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable.
9. The respondent further submits that this Court has normally not entertained the writ petitions when a complex issues regarding to disputed questions are involved, and more particularly, in the absence of any document of title has been filed by the petitioner to dispute the nature and classification of the land, for which, presumptions are always drawn in favour of the Government unless and until, the contrary is proved. He would further submit that the petitioner has not filed any document that the land was assigned on concessional price and to that effect, the competent authority has issued any such certificate. In the absence of any documents in support of his claim, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief to be granted in the writ petition, and the writ petition filed is misconceived, and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
10. On behalf of the respondent No.2, Sub-Registrar, Champapet, while denying the writ averments, separate counter has been filed, inter alia, stating that as per the list of Government lands in Jalpally village communicated through the Lr.No.B/712/2009, dated 19.06.2009 of the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and via District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lr.No.JC.1/Peshi/Spl.2009, dated 20.02.2009, the land in Survey No.8 of Jalpally village, is notified as Government land under NVSK, J 9 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. It is further submitted that the petitioner was orally informed to apply for de-notification of the said land to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, because department is no way concerned to accept the request of the petitioner for de-notification of the Government lands. In view of the above, the said notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, registration of a document cannot be entertained by the registering officer.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
11. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, while reiterating the writ averments further submitted that the entry to the effect that the land is "Kahariz Khata" in the Khasra Pahani does not mean that it is Government land and has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, District Collector, stating that "Admittedly the subject land was recorded in the khasra pahani as "Khariz Khata (Sarkari)", which denotes that the land originally belongs to pattadars was accounted for remittance of revenue cist". The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the counter affidavit itself clearly states that 'Khariz Khata' only means that the land originally belonged to Pattadars/owners who were paying land revenue and the expression "Khariz" in Urdu means "Struck off for default in payment of land revenue" and submits that the entry 'Khariz Khata' does not mean that it is a Government land.
NVSK, J 10 W.P. No.15955 of 2019
12. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 02.11.2021 passed in W.P. No.3486 and 3536 of 2020, an unreported order, and refers to the relevant paras as under:
A perusal of the documents, more particularly the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 shows that in respect of the land in Sy. No.32, admeasuring Ac.10-21 guntas and the lands in Sy. Nos.33 and 34 in Column No.6 (name of the land Shistu), it is recorded as Kharij Khata and in Column No.8 (Patta/Inam or Govt. Land), it is recorded as Patta and in Column No.9 (Pattadar/Inamdar name), it is recorded as Kotha Chennaiah and Mohammed Raziuddin respectively. Thereafter, right from 1955 to 58 Pahanies to till date, there is no change in the said pahanies and throughout, it is recorded as patta land and the names of pattadars were also recorded. Merely because in the Khasra Pahani i.e., Pahani for the year 1954-55, in Column No.6, it is recorded as Kharij Khata, the same cannot be treated as Government Land, that too after lapse of more than sixty years. If the Government have any right or interest over the subject lands, their remedy is to file a civil suit seeking declaration of their title, but they cannot simply include the lands in the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and deny the rights of the pattadar.
Moreover, under similar circumstances and in respect of the very same village, this Court vide orders dated 08.10.2013 allowed W.P. No.15977 NVSK, J 11 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 of 2013. The relevant portion of the order, dated 08.10.2013 reads thus:-
"However, on the basis of a mere assumption that the subject land is a government land, it is not open to the Government to stall registration of documents relating thereto through communication of a list of such lands to the registration authorities. The scheme of Section 22-A of the Act of 1908, as it stands presently, does not allow such liberties to the revenue authorities. Further, the list of lands communicated by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and the Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, was the list of lands detailed in G.O.Ms. No.786 dated 09.11.1999. As stated supra, Section 22-A of the Act of 1908 as it stood then was invalidated by a Division Bench of this Court in M. RAMA DEVI (W.P. No. 14099 of 2003 and Batch, dated 07.12.2005) wherein it was made clear that notifications issued under the said provision were also liable to be quashed. G.O.Ms. No.786 dated 09.11.1999, being one such notification, cannot therefore be relied upon by the revenue authorities at this stage. Ergo, the action of the respondents in treating the subject land as one falling within the prohibition envisaged by Section 22-A of the Act of 1908, as it presently stands, cannot be countenanced."
Subsequently, this Court allowed W.P. No.38875 of 2017 on 31.01.2020 which was filed complaining the action of respondents in not taking steps to de-notify the lands by deleting from Section 22-A of the Act pursuant to the orders passed in W.P. No.15977 of 2013, dated 08.10.2013. The learned Government Pleader stated that as against the aforesaid orders, NVSK, J 12 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 the Government has not preferred any writ appeal and the said order has become final.
Sri Gandra Mohan Rao, the learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has relied on a decision reported in Syed Zakir Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013 (4) ALT 671) wherein, this Court while allowing the writ petition, at para 19, has observed as under:-
"19. On the above analysis, in the absence of a notification under Section 22-A (2) of the Act of 1908, this Court finds that there is no legal basis for refusal by the registration authorities to receive and register the documents presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject land. Needless to state, if the Government is in a position to assert and establish its title in respect of the subject land, it is always open to it to approach the proper forum in accordance with law and seek appropriate reliefs, including cancellation of registered documents relating to the subject land."
Further, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied on T. Yedukondalu v. Prl.
Secy. To Govt., Department of Revenue, Stamps and Registration, Hyderabad; (2011 (4) ALD 43) and Sunkara Sujana v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.
(2014 (3) ALD 70). Even though the learned counsel has placed reliance on the above
decisions, the same are not being discussed in view of the fact that in respect of the similar issue, as observed above, this Court has already allowed the writ petitions being W.P. No 15977 of 2013, dated 08.10.2013 and W.P. No. 38875 of 2017, dated 31.01.2020.
NVSK, J 13 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 For the forgoing reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed. The letter/endorsement No. E5/932/18, dated 02.11.2018 and the letter/endorsement No. E5/5590/17, E5/950/18, dated 17.07.2019 issued by the respondent No.2 are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to de-list the subject land from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
Consequently, the respondent No.5 shall take necessary steps and make changes in Dharani Portal for allotment of slots. If any document/deed is presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject property, the registering authority shall entertain, process, register and release the same subject to the petitioners complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899."
13. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that since the above order has attained finality and it is identical to the present case since the lands in that case and the present case are part and parcel of Jalpally village, the said order applies in all force to the present case also.
14. In the writ grounds it is submitted that a khariz khata land is not Government land. The true meaning of Khariz Khata is the revenue account of a defaulter of land revenue, which does not convert the ownership of the pattedar into that of the State Government. It is also urged that the finding of the 1st respondent that it is Khariz Khata land and hence it has to be included in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act is patently NVSK, J 14 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 erroneous. Further a Laoni patta is a concessional sale as per law laid down in 2008 (5) ALT 313 and the said land can never be included in a prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The reasoning of the 1st respondent is totally erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by the Court in W.P. No.14608 of 2009. It is further urged that in the absence of concrete evidence that it is Government land, the prohibition of registrations is arbitrary and illegal. Further, the custodian of records must maintain full description and particulars of categories of land. An inclusion into the prohibitory list based on guess work and phypothesis is impermissible in law. As per the Khasra pahani entry the subject land is Khariz Khata and that means that it is not a Government land. Therefore, the entry in the Khasra pahani is a document of title as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2015 (3) SCC 695 and as such the subject land cannot be prohibited for registration.
15. The learned Senior Counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 15.07.2022 passed in W.P. No.12372 of 2019 and the relevant paras reads as under:
"7. It is settled law that the entries in the revenue records do not confer any title. They are not conclusive and only have presumptory value. The dispute here is with regard to entry "Kharij Khata Sarkari." Except entry in the pahanis for the years 1951-52 and 1954-55 showing the subject land as Kharij Khata Sarkari, there is no other document produced by the respondent to NVSK, J 15 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 show that the said entry was made on the strength of some proceedings. Kharij Khata means deletion of account. The land of a private pattadar will be declared as Kharij Khata for various reasons. It may be nonpayment of land revenue or State dues or it also may be because the land is abondoned or not in cultivation of any person. It is for the respondents to, prima facie, show that the declaration of Kharij Khata was on the basis of some proceedings or orders, which they failed to substantiate. Subsequently, there are consistent revenue entries right from the year 1955 onwards showing the subject land as private patta land and in possession of private parties.
8. The observation of the respondent No.2 that the burden lies on the petitioner-company to show as to how the Kharij Khata was converted into patta land is unsustainable. The Government/Revenue authorities being custodian and author of the records, have to discharge the said burden. It is not for the petitioner-company to prove as to how the Kharij Khata was deleted and the land was treated as patta land. There is no basis for the respondents to contend that the burden is on the petitioner company to establish as to how the Kharij Khata entry was deleted. It is relevant to point out that no material whatsoever has been placed on record before this Court to hold that change of entries from Kharij Khata to patta was made contrary to the procedure established under law. In fact, in column No.11 of Sesala Pahani (1955-1958), it is recorded that patta has been implemented in the name of Mobathi, son of Mobath; Papalal, Hannu Singh and Kndan in respect of Acs.14.17 guntas in Survey No.20 as NVSK, J 16 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 per the orders of Tahsil in File No.1771 which was ignored by respondent No.2 in the impugned endorsement. There is no denial by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the names of the petitioner and its predecessors-in- title as pattadars/possessors in revenue records were continued for more than five - six decades. The learned Special Government Pleader has not cited any judicial precedent to support his plea that burden lies on the petitioner to prove change of revenue entry from "Kharij Khata" to "Patta."
9. In the light of above discussion, inclusion of the subject land in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
The Endorsement No.E5/200/2015 dated 04.06.2019 (Sic. dated 04.06.2018) is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to forthwith delete the subject lands from the list of Prohibited Properties under Section 22-A of the Act."
16. The learned Senior Counsel has further made an alternative submission that the State has contended that the subject land is a laoni patta and hence it is inalienable. But the State has not produced the record to show the grant in the form of laoni patta and also failed to produce any record that the grant was burdened with a condition of inalienablility. This aspect has been considered and decided by another learned Single Judge in W.P. No.6844 of 2022 on 05.06.2023 and the relevant para reads as under:
NVSK, J 17 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 "29. There is no mention about the condition of nonalienability in grant of the year 1953 in the impugned endorsement as held by this Court in W.A.No.91 of 2020 dated 10.08.2021.
The Government is the custodian of the record and if any condition of non-alienability is incorporated, it get mentioned in the impugned endorsement. There is no such mention in the impugned endorsement. Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned endorsement is not on consideration of the aforesaid provisions of law and the principle laid down in the aforesaid Judgments. Therefore, the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside.
30. Accordingly, the impugned endorsement of Respondent No.2-District Collector, Sangareddy District contained in letter No.D1/829/2020 dated 20.10.2021 is set aside. However, Respondent No.2-District Collector shall take steps to delete subject land from the prohibitory list as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, so that respondent Nos.4 to 6 shall entertain the registration in respect of the subject land."
17. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the State is unclear as to whether the subject land is Khariz Khata land or laoni patta or assigned land. It has not placed any record about the contentions which are contradictory in nature as stated in the counter affidavit of the District Collector. Hence, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the State that it has intentionally not placed the record before this Court. The law relating to drawing of adverse NVSK, J 18 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 inference is held in AIR 1999 SC 1441 is that non-production of the material document warrants drawing of adverse inference for the reason that had the record been produced, it would go against the interest of the State.
18. He would further submitted that in order to place a particular land in the prohibitory list, there should be a notification issued by the State Government under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. In the present case it is not the case of the State that any such notification has been issued under Section 22-A(2) or Section 22(1) (e) of the Registration Act. A Division Bench of this Court has held that in the absence of such a notification, prohibition of sale transactions in respect of any land is illegal.
19. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has reiterated the counter averments and prayed to pass appropriate orders.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS:
20. On a perusal of the impugned Endorsement dated 26.04.2019, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, has taken the reference of the Tahsildar, Balapur Mandal Note dated 29.06.2018 as the 2nd reference and as per the same, the revenue records i.e., pahanis of Jalpally village, the entries against Sy.No.8 are recorded in pahani 1954-55 (Khasra) to an extent of Acs.5.12 guntas classified as Kharij Khata Sarkari; in the name of Pattedar column as Kharij Khata Sarkari and NVSK, J 19 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 in the column of Possessor as Sarkari. Further, in the Pahani 1963-64 the said survey number was sub divided as Sy.No.8/1 to an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas and the Pattedar was shown as Sharfuddin and in possessor column shown as Sontham; and Sy.No.8/2 to an extent of Acs.3.12 guntas and the Pattedar was shown as Sharfuddin and in possessor column shown as Sontham. Thereafter, in the Pahani 2015-16, Sy.No.8/2 to an extent of Acs.3.12 guntas was classified as Lavoni Patta and the name of the Pattedar was shown as Syed Jaffar Ahmed S/o. Syed Ahmed and in the possessor's column shown as Plots.
21. In support of the case of the petitioner, a Memo has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner enclosing the copies of the sale deed bearing Document No.2649 of 1998 dated 30.04.1998, which was registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Champapet, Ranga Reddy District as well as Pattadar Pass Book No.438456 (Patta No.660) as additional material papers and the same have been received on record and the learned Government Pleader did not dispute the contents of the record.
22. In the impugned Endorsement itself, the District Collector noted that the petitioner has purchased the land from one Hafeez Mohammad Abdul Lateef @ Mustaq vide Document No.2649/1998 dated 30.04.1998 and mutation was implemented vide Proceedings No.B/2026/2005 dated 12.06.2006. Further, the Tahsildar, Balapur NVSK, J 20 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 Mandal has reported that on verification of Faisal Patti of Jalpally village for the year 1961-62, the entries are as follows:
"Survey Nos.8 to 12, Area Ac.8.18 gts., Tax (7.75) excluded from Khata (Passbook). Patta has been sanctioned by department of Revenue to cited Survey Numbers under Laoni Khas (Spl.Tax). Subsequently the obtained copy of barred Shivar was received from department of land record, Refer file No.D-1/5557/62 8/1 2.00 Acre 2.00 Rupees Shareefunnisa 8/2 3.12 Acre 2.40 Rupees Syed Shareefuddin 12/2 3.01 Acre 2.00 Rupees Syed Shareefuddin As stated above 8.13 Acre land, Tax (6.4) (Osmania Currency) 5.36 (Indian Currency) now including increased land tax Rs.9.38 may be sanctioned under Uftada Izafa."
It is further held in the impugned Endorsement as under:
"Through the reference 3rd cited, a memo was issued to Sri Syed Jaffer Ahmed for submitting proof /evidences, if any in support of his claim. In turn the individual has submitted the copy of Faisal Patti for the year 1961-62 and translated copy of Faisal Patti as detailed above.
From the reading of the above, it is evident that patta has been sanctioned to the above (02) individuals including for Sy.No.8/1 & 8/2 in favour of one Syed Shareefuddin for Ac.5.12 guntas.
On further verification of the copy of the Faisal Patti for the year 1961-62, it is found that there is an another entry as follows:
NVSK, J 21 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 Rs.9.38 Laoni Izafa:
(Rupees nine and N.P. thirty eight only) sanctioned as "Laoni Izafa"
From the above, it is evident that laoni Izafa was sanctioned by the Nizam Jamabandi which clearly indicate that the pattas were granted as assignment (Laoni) to the individuals.
In view of the above, the lands are originally Khariz Khata (Govt.) lands granted assignment to the individuals, as such the request for deletion of the land in Sy.No.8/2, Extent Ac.3.12 guntas situated at Jalpally village, Balapur Mandal from the 22-A Prohibitory Properties List cannot be considered."
23. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the subject land is a private patta land, the 1st respondent, District Collector, is refusing to de-notify the subject land from the prohibitory list on the ground that the subject lands are originally Khariz Khata (Government) lands granted assignment to the individuals.
24. Now the question falls for consideration is whether the subject land can be de-notified from the prohibitory list or not?
25. For better appreciation, it is significant to describe what is "Khariz Khata". In the hand book of Land Records authored by Sri P.Kasthuri Reddy (Fellow of the Institution of Surveyors), Formerly Director of Survey and Land Records, Government of Andhra Pradesh and also Former Council Member, Institution of Surveyors (India), NVSK, J 22 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 defined as "Kharji Katha means, a portion of patta land may be ordered to be deleted from Khatha of the pattadar either due to relinquishment of the land on account of erosion adjoining a river or the land has become unseless for cultivation or due to non-payment of land revenue. In such cases, the land is classified as Kharji Khata which means that it is delted from patta land."
26. In a Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms and of Useful Words Occurring in Official Documents authored by Sri H.H. Wilson, M.A. F.R.S., Librarian to the East-India Company, and Boden Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Oxford, it is defined as "Kharij, Excluded or separated from, extraneous to, external, additional."
In a book of Glossary authored by Sri V.Rajaiah it is defined as "Kharij - The land on which no assessment is fixed; Kharij - Excluded, deleted;
Khata - Kulam, or category or Land holder's account of his survey numbers."
27. However, having gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the material made available on the record, it is not in dispute that the subject land has been originally classified as "Khariz Khata Sarkari" in the Pahani (Khasar) for the year 1954-55 and subsequently in the Pahani for the year 2015-16 it has been classified as "Lavoni Patta".
NVSK, J 23 W.P. No.15955 of 2019
28. On a perusal of the impugned Endorsement dated 26.04.2019, it is noted that the 1st respondent, District Collector, has mentioned in a tabular form that the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 in respect of Sy.No.8 admeasuring Acs.5.12 guntas has been classified as "Kharij Khata Sarkari", in the column of Pattedar it is recorded as "Kharij Khata Sarkari and in the Possessor column it is recorded as "Sarkari". Thereafter, in the Pahani for the year 1963-64, the said Sy.No.8 has been sub-divided into two survey numbers i.e. Sy.No.8/1 and 8/2, admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas and Acs.3.12 guntas without any change in the column of classification however, in the column of Pattedar it is recorded as "Sharfuddin" and in the column of Possessor it is recorded as "Sontham", respectively. Subsequently, in the Pahani for the year 2015-16, in respect of Sy.No.8/2, admeasuring Acs.3.12 guntas is classified as "Lavoni Patta"; in the name of Pattedar recorded as "Syed Jaffer Ahmed S/o.Syed Ahmed" (petitioner herein) and in the Possessor's column it is recorded as "Plots".
29. Moreover, under similar circumstances and in respect of the very same village, this Court vide order dated 02.11.2021, while considering the various judicial precedents, allowed the W.Ps. No.3486 and 3536 of 2020. The relevant portion of the order dated 02.11.2021 reads as under:
For the forgoing reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed. The letter/endorsement No.E5/932/18, dated 02.11.2018 and the letter/endorsement No.E5/5590/17, E5/950/18, NVSK, J 24 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 dated 17.07.2019 issued by the respondent No.2 are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to de-list the subject land from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Consequently, the respondent No.5 shall take necessary steps and make changes in Dharani Portal for allotment of slots. If any document/deed is presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject property, the registering authority shall entertain, process, register and release the same subject to the petitioners complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899."
30. Further, the respondents have contended that the subject land is a laoni patta and hence it is inalienable. In this regard, it is to be noted that except mentioning in the impugned Endorsement dated 26.04.2019 that during the pahani period of 2015-16 in respect of Sy.No.8/2 admeasuring Acs.3.12 guntas showing the classification of the land as Lavoni Patta, no document has been placed before this Court to show that the Lavoni patta has been granted with a condition of inalienability. The aforementioned aspect as has also been considered by this Court in W.P. No.6844 of 2022 dated 05.06.2023 wherein it was held that "the Government is the custodian of the record and if any condition of non-alienability is incorporated, it get mentioned in the impugned endorsement. There is no such mention in the impugned endorsement. Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned endorsement is not on consideration of the aforesaid provisions of law and the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments. Therefore, NVSK, J 25 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned endorsement of the District Collector, Sanga Reddy District contained in letter No.D1/829/2020 dated 20.10.2021 is set aside.
However, Respondent No.2-District Collector shall take steps to delete subject land from the prohibitory list as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, so that respondent Nos.4 to 6 shall entertain the registration in respect of the subject land".
31. Further, it is to be noted that it is not clear from the respondents that how the classification of the subject land has been changed from that of the Kharij Khata to Lavoni Patta and whether the subject land is Khariz Khata or Laoni Patta or assigned land and there appears to be a discrepancy from the record.
32. It is pertinent to note here that the authorities have classified the subject land differently as stated in the impugned Endorsement. It is also observed that the Government initially has classified the subject land as Kharij Khatha and thereafter has recognized as Patta land and registration was allowed duly effecting the mutation in the revenue records. After such a long period, the Government, at this stage, cannot lay a claim on the subject land that it is a Government land. In view of the said discrepancies, the impugned Endorsement dated 26.04.2019 is not clear and at this juncture, the 1st respondent, District Collector, cannot take a different stand in the impugned Endorsement.
NVSK, J 26 W.P. No.15955 of 2019
33. A bare reading of the explanation given on the term of Kharij Khatha it is to be noted that merely declaring the subject land as Kharij Khatha for various reasons cannot be deemed as the Government land more so when the subject land earlier was treated as the patta land and khatha has already been allotted.
34. It is significant to note here that the process of changing the patta land to that of the (Kharij Khatha) Government land must be under a prescribed procedure contemplated under the Statute. If the Government has any right or interest over the subject land, their remedy is to file a civil suit seeking declaration of their title, but they cannot simply include the lands in the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and deny the rights of the Pattadar.
35. In the case on hand, the District Collector and the Registering authorities ought to have checked that earlier, the petitioner's document was registered way back in the year 1998 vide Document No.2649 of 1998 dated 30.04.1998 and at that point of time the records were very much available with the respondents authorities and no objection was taken at the time of registration and now the respondents authorities cannot prohibit for further registration without putting on notice to the petitioner the subject land cannot be included in the prohibitory properties list. Thereafter, the respondents authorities, before including the subject land in the NVSK, J 27 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 prohibited properties list ought to have given notice under Section 22(A)1(e) enabling the affected parties to take appropriate steps. In the absence of following such procedure, denying further registration of the subject land is unsustainable.
36. It is not out of place to quote here that it is well settled law that the entries in the revenue records do not confer any title. They are not conclusive and only have presumptory value. Similar aspect has been dealt with by this Court in W.P. No.12372 of 2019 as narrated hereinabove. The dispute in the present case is with regard to entry "Kharij Khata Sarkari.". Except entry in the pahanis for the years 1954-55, 1963-64 showing the subject land as Kharij Khata Sarkari, no document has been produced by the respondents to show that the said entry was made on the strength of any proceedings. Kharij Khata means deletion of account. It is for the respondents to, prima facie, show that the declaration of Kharij Khata was on the basis of some proceedings or orders, which they failed to substantiate. Even as per the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, it is stated that the subject land was recorded in the Khasra Pahani as Kharij Khatha (Sarkari), which denotes that the subject land originally belongs to the Pattadars and was accounted for remittance of revenue cist.
37. It is pertinent to note that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Invecta Technologies Private Limited and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2024 (1) ALT 272 (DB) had upheld the validity of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 wherein the NVSK, J 28 W.P. No.15955 of 2019 Division Bench had also observed that though the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) vide order dated 23.12.2015 had not dealt with the issue of validity of Section 22-A of the Act, but the interpretation of Section 22-A of the Act binds this Court.
38. Further, it is to be noted that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary vide its order dated 23.12.2015 had issued guidelines and the impugned Endorsement has been made on 26.04.2019 and the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2019 wherein the counter affidavit has been filed by the District Collector in the year 2019. However, neither in the impugned Endorsement nor in the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, the aforesaid guidelines were taken into consideration to the effect that unless the land is notified the same cannot be denied for registration. In the absence of the same, impugned Endorsement dated 26.04.2019 is unsustainable.
39. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and in the light of the above discussion, the inclusion of the subject land in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
NVSK, J 29 W.P. No.15955 of 2019
40. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned Endorsement No.E5/531/2018, dated 26.04.2019 is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to forthwith delete the subject lands from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and the respondent authorities cannot prohibit the subject land for further registration. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 07.01.2025 Note: L.R. Copy be marked.
B/o.
LSK