Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B Saraswathi vs Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept., Hyd., 4 ... on 20 January, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.32702 OF 2016
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 to declare the inaction of the respondent No.2 in giving necessary orders to the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein for deletion of the plot belonging to the petitioner bearing No.14 admeasuring 222.2 Sq. Yards in Sy. No. 33/2B situated at Bakkanapalem village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District from the list of prohibited lands duly incorporating the said changes in the revenue records inspite of the representation dated 27.08.2016 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent authorities to delete the above said plot from the list of Government Land duly incorporation the same in the revenue records.."
2. The case of petitioner is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of plot bearing No.14 admeasuring an extent of 222.2 Sq. Yards in Sy. No.33/2b situated at Bakkannapalem village, Visakhapatham Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam having purchased the same from its lawful owner under registered sale deed document bearing No. 13/1993, dated 08.01.1993 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Madhurawada. The petitioner submitted an application before the 5th respondent, duly enclosing all relevant documents and expressed her readiness to pay the requisite charges and on that the officials of the 4th respondent herein informed to pay Rs.14,045/- by way of demand draft. Later, the 5th respondent after careful scrutiny and examination with reference to A.P. Regulation of Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2007, found to be in order and accordingly, the subject plots were regularised under the said rules on payment of pro-rata open space charges under the Rules and issued orders in proceedings No.2378/08/LS, dated 22-12-2011. 2
3. Later, the petitioner came to know that the 4th respondent herein notified the plot No.14 in Sy. No. 33/2B i.e., land situated in Bakkannapalem village, in the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
4. The petitioner made a written representation 27-08-2016 to the 2nd respondent reiterating the above facts and requested to give necessary instructions to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to verify the records and rectify the mistake crept in the prohibitory properties list and delete the same from the prohibitory properties list. But, no action is taken till date on the representation dated 27.08.2016.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sanisetti Venkateswarlu and Sri V. Suryakiran for respondent No.5, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
6. During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Sanisetti Venkateswarlu contended that an order was passed regularising the layout for the plot No.14 i.e., the subject property by the order in Rc. No. 2378/08/LS, dated 22.12.2011, the petitioner became the lawful owner and inclusion of the subject property under prohibited property list under Section 22-A is an illegality committed by the District Collector, Visakhaptnam District.
7. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Stamps and Registration supported the action of the 2nd respondent in inclusion of the subject property in prohibitory property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Whereas, V.Suryakiran, learned counsel for the 5th respondent ready to act upon the directions, if any, issued by the 2nd respondent or by this Court. 3
8. It is an undisputed fact that a layout was laid without any prior approval by the Government. But, the petitioner purchased the subject property bearing plot No.14, admeasuring 222.2 Sq. Yards, in Sy. No.33/2B situated in Bakkannapalem village, Visakhapatnam District. Since, Rules permit for regularisation of such layout, the petitioner made an application for regularisation of layout to the extent of the plot and paid Rs. 14,045/- by way of demand draft and thereafter, the 5th respondent issued proceedings dated 22.12.2011 regularising layout for the plot bearing No.14 purchased by the petitioner.
9. The respondent No.2, 3 and 4 did not dispute inclusion of this property in the prohibitory property list and notified under Section 22-A of Registration Act. The reason for inclusion is that the plot is a part of unapproved layout. The respondent No.2 may include certain properties under prohibited properties list under Section 22- A, which has specified under Section 22-A (1)(a) to (e) which are enumerated as under :
"22-A.Prohibition of Registration of certain documents.-
(1) The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namely:
(a) documents relating to transfer of immoveable property, the alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the State or Central Government;
(b) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of immoveable property owned by the State or Central Government, executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so;
(c) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten) 10 years in respect of immoveable property, owned by Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or by Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995 executed 4 by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so;
(d) agricultural or urban lands declared as surplus under the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 or the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976;
(e) any document or class of documents pertaining to the properties the State Government may, by notification prohibit the registration in which avowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal, Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others which are likely to adversely affect those interests."
10. But, inclusion of property i.e., a part of unapproved layout is not covered by any of the clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A(1). Therefore, the very inclusion of the property under prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A is a serious illegality.
11. The petitioner admittedly made an application dated 27.08.2016 for deletion of the property from prohibitory properties list; but mere making representation is not appropriate in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law and such an application has to be submitted to the 2nd respondent, if any, notification is issued in terms of Sub-Section-2 of Section 22-A, and the respondent shall consider the application in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.300 Revenue (ASSN.1) Department dated 05.07.2016. Therefore, making a representation in writing is not sufficient as on date to delete the property from the prohibitory properties list. Hence, petitioner is given liberty to make an appropriate application as per G.O.Ms.No.300 Revenue (ASSN.1) Department dated 05.07.2016 on payment of requisite fee, if necessary, and on making such application, the respondent shall pass appropriate order within the time prescribed under the G.O.Ms.No.300 Revenue (ASSN.1) Department dated 05.07.2016.
5
12. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 20.01.2022 psr 6 59 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY (disposed of) WRIT PETITION NO.32702 OF 2016 Date: 20.01.2022 psr