Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Syed Zakir Hussain vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, ... on 2 July, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2013 AP 1
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.NO.27970 OF 2012 dated:02-07-2013 Syed Zakir Hussain... Petitioner The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented By its Secretary, Revenue Department (Stamps and Registration), Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others....Respondents Counsel for appellants : Sri Srinivas Rao Beemaruthi Counsel for respondents: Sri G.P. for Revenue <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ?CASES REFERRED: 1.W.P.No.14099 of 2003 & batch, dt. 07.12.2005 WRIT PETITION NO.27970 OF 2012 O R D E R
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner challenged G.O.Ms.No.237 (wrongly mentioned as G.O.Ms.No.240), Revenue (Registration-I), dated 05.03.2004, and the refusal by the Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, the second respondent, relying thereon, to register the documents presented by him in respect of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4-34 guntas in Sy.No.96, Mangalpalli Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land and that his ancestors were in ownership and possession thereof for more than 100 years.
While so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued the impugned G.O. in exercise of powers conferred by Section 22-A (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'the Act of 1908'), as amended by the Registration (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act of 1999'), declaring the registration of documents relating to immovable properties situated at the places described in the annexure thereto as opposed to public policy. The petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.4-34 guntas in Sy.No.96 of Mangalpalli Village was included in the said annexure under the category of 'Government lands'. The petitioner stated that he came to know of the existence of the aforestated G.O. when he approached the office of the second respondent to know the particulars of valuation of the subject land.
Aggrieved by the said G.O. in so far as it categorized his land as Government land and prohibited registration of documents relating thereto on the ground of public policy, the petitioner filed the present case. He contended that as the Act of 1999 was struck down by this Court, the impugned G.O., which was issued thereunder, would also not survive. He therefore sought a declaration that the impugned G.O. is ultra vires and illegal and that the refusal by the second respondent to register documents presented by him in respect of the subject land, relying upon the said G.O., is also illegal and arbitrary.
In his counter-affidavit, the Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam, stated that the subject land was a 'poramboke' [Government land] as per the information furnished by the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam, under his letter No.B/528/2012 dated 13.02.2012. He pointed out that after the Act of 1999 was struck down by this Court, a new Section 22-A was incorporated in the Registration Act, 1908, under A.P Amendment Act No.19 of 2007, with effect from 20.06.2007. He contended that registration of documents relating to the subject land was prohibited under Section 22-A (1) (b) of the Act of 1908, as it stands presently. A copy of the letter No.B/528/2012 dated Nil.02.2012 signed by the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, with the date 13.02.2012 endorsed thereunder, was filed along with the counter. This letter reads as under:
"Sir, Sub:- 22-A Notification - Ranga Reddy District - Ibrahimpatnam Mandal - Submitting of 22-A Notification - Reg.
Ref:- Instruction of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, dated I invite kind attention to the references cited and submit herewith the 22-A Register (in hard and soft copy) proposals for notification for prohibition of registration of Government Land of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as desired.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
13.2.2012 Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Encl: 22-A Notification.
Copy:- Submitted to the S.G.D.C & R.D.O. R.R. East Division for favour of kind information. Copy to the Sub-Register, Ibrahimpatnam."
The list appended to this letter included the subject extent of Ac.4-34 guntas in Sy.No.96 of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal with 'Poramboke' entered against it in the 'Remarks' column.
The petitioner thereupon filed WPMP.No.6606 of 2013 seeking production of the record pertaining to letter No.B/528/2012 dated 13.02.2012. He stated in the affidavit filed in support thereof that he had approached the office of the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, seeking a copy of the said letter with details pertaining thereto. The Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, however informed him that the said file number pertained to a Birth Certificate and that his request to furnish him a copy of the letter bearing No.B/528/2012 dated 13.02.2012 was not feasible of compliance. The office of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, upon enquiry, informed him that file No.B/528/2012 dated 13.02.2012 had not been received by it. The petitioner therefore alleged that the letter which was filed along with the counter- affidavit was fabricated and sought production of the record pertaining thereto. He stated that no notification had been issued under Section 22-A of the Act of 1908 and that the second respondent could not refuse registration of documents pertaining to this land on the basis of the aforestated fabricated letter.
In the light of the controversy raised in respect of this letter, the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue was asked to produce the record pertaining thereto. The original record was accordingly placed before this Court. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue stated that the file bore No.B/528/09 and by inadvertence, the subject letter which was addressed to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, by the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, mentioned the file number wrongly as B/528/2012. Perusal of the file confirms this.
The file seems to have originated in June 2009 in the context of preparing proposals for issuing a notification under the present Section 22-A of the Act of 1908. Correspondence at various levels since June 2009 comprises the file. This correspondence broadly indicates that the authorities felt a need to check and verify all the proposals made by the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, which were notified by the Government under Section 22-A of the Act of 1908 and send a report indicating the mistakes therein so as to enable the Government to rectify them by issuing appropriate orders. Under letter No.B/528/2009 dated 04.02.2012, the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, submitted revised proposals under Section 22-A of the Act of 1908, after duly verifying the proposals submitted earlier. Thereafter, he addressed the disputed letter No.B/528/2012 signed on 13.02.2012 whereunder he submitted proposals, in hard and soft copy, for notification under Section 22-A of the Act of 1908. The file number is obviously a mistake and seems to have been repeated thereafter in letter No.B/528/2012 dated 28.03.2012 addressed by the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District. By way of this letter, the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, informed the District Collector that he had already submitted proposals for notification under Section 22-A of the Act of 1908 under his letter dated 13.02.2012. A copy of the same was again forwarded for ready reference. It is therefore established that the mention of the wrong file number in the letter submitted along with the counter-affidavit was on account of a mistake and that it was not a fabricated document, as suspected by the petitioner. However, commission of such careless and negligent mistakes by responsible officers of the Government is a different matter altogether which requires to be addressed by the authorities at the appropriate level.
Section 22-A of the Act of 1908, inserted by the Act of 1999, was declared unconstitutional by a Division Bench of this Court in M.RAMA DEVI V/s. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT1. Perusal of the judgment demonstrates that as a sequel to striking down the provision, the Division Bench held that the Rules framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh for giving effect to the said provision and the notifications issued in exercise of the powers conferred thereunder were also liable to be quashed. In consequence, G.O.Ms.No.237, Revenue (Registration-I), dated 05.03.2004, which was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by the invalidated Section 22-A became inoperative and automatically stood nullified. It is an admitted fact that no notification has been issued under Section 22-A (2) of the Act of 1908, as it now stands. Significantly, the ground of public policy, available in the earlier Section 22-A of the Act of 1908, no longer figures as a reason for prohibiting registration of documents under the present provision. Thus, presently there is no notification issued under the existing Section 22-A [2] of the Act of 1908 prohibiting registration of documents relating to the subject land.
It is however the contention of Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, that notwithstanding the absence of a notification under Section 22-A (2) of the Act of 1908 in so far as the subject land is concerned, no document relating thereto could be registered as the prohibition envisaged by the extant Section 22-A (1) (b) of the Act of 1908 would apply.
This Court is however not persuaded to agree.
Section 22-A of the Act of 1908, as it reads presently and to the extent relevant, is extracted hereunder:
"22-A. Prohibition of registration of certain documents:- (1) the following classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namely:-
(a) ....
(b) Documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of immovable property owned by the State or Central Government, executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so;
(c) ...
(d) ...
(e) any documents 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 other which are likely to adversely affect these interests.
(2) For the purpose of clause(e) of sub-section (1), the State Government shall publish a notification after obtaining reasons for and full description of properties furnished by the District Collectors concerned in the manner as may be prescribed.
....."
Significantly, the record produced before this Court demonstrates that the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its officers were actively involved since June, 2009 in finalizing the proposals for issuing a fresh notification under Section 22-A of the Act of 1908 in respect of the lands in Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, including the subject land. Though these proposals originated as long back as in the year 2009, they are yet to crystallize in a notification under the said provision. Having already initiated the process for issuing a notification under Section 22-A (2) in respect of the subject land and other lands in Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, it is not open to the Government to now contend that it is not necessary at all to have such a notification and that a prohibition as to registration of documents in relation to this land would operate under Section 22-A (1) (b) of the Act 1908. The Government, akin to any other litigant, cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. Having committed itself to a course of action, the Government cannot resile therefrom to suit its own convenience.
Even on merits, this Court finds no substance in the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the prohibition envisaged by Section 22- A (1) (b) of the Act of 1908 would have application. A plain reading of the said provision makes it clear that documents for transfer of immovable properties owned by the Government executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so would fall within the ambit thereof. Juxtaposed thereto, Section 22-A (1) (e) deals with documents pertaining to the property in which the Government, amongst others, claims avowed or accrued interests and by way of a notification issued under Section 22-A (2), registration of documents which are likely to adversely affect these interests is prohibited. Thus, it is only in cases where title is not in issue and it is only the status of the executant of the document, in terms of statutory empowerment, that is under scrutiny that the prohibition contained in Section 22-A (1) (b) would operate. Documents executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so are subjected to prohibition of registration thereunder.
In effect, only a list of persons who are statutorily empowered to execute documents on behalf of the Government could be communicated to the registration authorities under this provision and not a list of the properties allegedly belonging to the Government. Such a list could only be furnished through a notification under Section 22-A (2) read with Section 22-A (1) (e) of the Act of 1908. To interpret these provisions otherwise would make Section 22-A (2) wholly redundant. The rules of statutory interpretation require that this Court give meaning and substance to each and every provision in the statute and not render any part thereof mere surplusage. Therefore, the construction of the provision to the contrary, suggested by the learned Special Government Pleader, must necessarily be rejected.
In the result, as the Government is admittedly still in the process of finalizing the proposals for issuing a notification under the existing Section 22-A (2) of the Act of 1908, there is no sanction presently for it to put into effect a prohibition of registration of documents in relation to the lands included in such proposals and to ask the registration authorities to act upon the same. It is distressing to note that the Government has not taken necessary steps in the matter of finalizing the notification and publishing it, despite a lapse of over four years since the initiation of the file. Strangely, this Court is yet to come across even a single notification issued under the present Section 22-A (2) of the Act of 1908 though it is six years since the incorporation of the provision in the statute. If it is truly the endeavour of the Government to protect lands in which it claims avowed or accrued interests, such tardiness in putting legal sanctions in place is not only counter- productive but also reflects poorly on the Government's sincerity in protecting public properties.
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.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed declaring G.O.Ms.No.237, Revenue (Registration-I) dated 15.03.2004 as illegal. The action of the second respondent in refusing to register documents presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject land relying on the said G.O. is held to be equally illegal and unsustainable. There shall be a consequential direction to the Sub- Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, to receive and process the document(s) presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject land. In the event the said document(s) is/are found to fulfill the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899, the Sub-Registrar shall complete the registration formalities and release the document(s) in accordance with the due procedure. Pending WPMPs in this writ petition shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
-----------------------------
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
dated:02-07-2013