Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Domalapati Sarala, vs The Government Of A.P. on 13 April, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.41454 of 2017
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 list communicated by the respondents No.4 including the land in an extent of Ac.3.14 cents out of Ac.3.88 cents in Sy.No.111/3D and 111/3E of Angallu Village fields, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District as assigned land, even though, the same was assigned under Ex-Servicemen Quota through D-Form Pattas, dated 23.05.2005 and 04.11.2006 and the same is not prohibited from alienation after expiry of ten years period from the date of assignment and the consequential action of the respondent No.5 in refusing to entertain the Sale Deed for registration stating that the same is included in the list communicated by the respondent No.4 as arbitrary, illegal, without power or authority, contrary to the well established legal principles and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.5 to entertain the Sale Deed for registration for the land in an extent of Ac.3.14 cents out of Ac.3.88 cents in Sy.No.111/3D and 111/3E of Angallu Village fields, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District by setting aside the prohibitory lands list communicated by the respondent No,4 in so for as the land belong to the petitioners"
It is the case of the petitioners that an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.111/3D and Ac.1.33 cents in Sy.No.111/3E of Angallu village fields, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District, was assigned in favour of late Krishna Murthy Naidu under Ex-servicemen quota by issuing D-Form patta on 23.05.2005 and 04.11.2006. Since the date of assignment, the subject land was in the possession and enjoyment of late Krishna Murthy Naidu without interference from any one much less the respondents. As late Krishna Murthy Naidu became owner by virtue of the grant, his name was mutated in the revenue records, pattadar passbooks and title deed in his favour.
MSM,J WP_41454_2017 2 Late Krishna Murthy Naidu died issueless, but executed a Will in favour of the petitioners and three others. The said property was succeeded by the petitioners along with three others as legatees under the Will and in possession and enjoyment of the same since the date of death of late Krishna Murthy Naidu. The name of the petitioners and others were mutated in the revenue records, pattadar passbooks and title deed were issued in their favour.
As per the policy decision taken by the State Government and the Government Orders being issued by it from time to time, more particularly, G.O.Ms.No.1117, Revenue (ASSGN-I) Department, dated 11.11.1993, G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016, the assignees of the land, assigned under Ex-Servicemen quota are entitled to alienate the same in favour of third parties after expiry of ten years period from the date of assignment as long as the genuineness of the assignment is not in dispute. Further, it has also been categorically stated in G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016 that the land assigned under Ex-Servicemen quota should be deleted from the prohibited lands list under Section 22 -A of the Registration Act, 1908 and furnish the same to the Registration Department in all the cases where there is no dispute of genuineness of the assignment.
While the matter stood thus, the petitioners offered to sell the land to an extent of Ac.3.14 cents out of Ac.3.88 cents in Sy.No.111/3D and 111/3E of Angallu Village fields, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District, in favour of the third parties for their family necessities, but respondent No.5, on presentation of the document, refused to receive the same for registration on the MSM,J WP_41454_2017 3 ground that the subject land is classified as "assigned land" and the same is prohibited for registration. As per G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993, the Ex-Serviceman who is given assignment is entitled to sell the same after expiry of ten years period from the date of assignment and as per G.0.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016 the land assigned under Ex-Servicemen quota should be deleted from the prohibitory lands list and furnish the same to the Registration Department in all the cases where there is no dispute about the genuineness of the assignment. Therefore, the inclusion of the subject land in the list communicated by the respondent No.4 as an assigned land and the consequential action of the respondent No.5 in refusing to entertain the Sale Deeds for registration on the ground that the same is included in the list of assigned lands communicated by the respondent No.4 is illegal and arbitrary.
Respondent No.4 filed counter denying material allegations while contending that the land in Sy.No.111, admeasuring an extent of Ac.22.00 cents was originally classified as "Gayalu" poramboke as per A-register of Angallu Village. Subsequently, the said extent has been sub-divided as per proceedings No.8A/5/1413, dated 29.12.2003 and 8A/7/1413 dated 02.01.2004 as per the entries available in A-Register, which are as follows:
Sl.No. Sy.No. & Extent Classification/Name of the Sub Divn. Pattadar if assigned No. 1 111/1 0.30 Gutta 2 111/2 0.33 Gutta 3 111/3 3.98 Kosuri Tirumalakka W/o Gangulappa MSM,J WP_41454_2017 4 4 111/4 0.54 Gutta 5 111/5 0.42 Banda 6 111/6 2.35 Gramanatham 7 111/7A 2.30 Gramanatham 8 111/7B 2.30 Gollapinni Kamalamma W/o Ramalinga Sharma 9 111/7C 1.20 Gramanatham 10 111/8 0.57 Gutta 11 111/9 0.47 Gutta 12 111/10 1.90 Boggala Mallaiah s/o Papaiah 13 111/11 1.46 Gutta 14 111/12 1.78 Boggala Mallaiah s/o Papaiah 15 111/13 3.53 Gramanatham (Chenetha Nagar) Total 22.00 As per the record, the land in Sy.No.111/3, admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.98 cents in Angallu village, Kurabalakota Mandal, was assigned to one Smt.Kosuri Thirumalakka W/o Gangulappa vide A.M.No.215/4/1390, dated 27.07.1980 and after her demise, the said land was divided into three shares and allotted to her legal heirs i.e., her daughter and two sons namely Smt.B.Lakshmamma W/o Pushapa Raju, Sri D.venkatramana S/o late Rayappa and Sri D.Chinna Appalla S/o Late Rayappa as per the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle in O.S.No.383 of 2001 dated 01.08.2005. Subsequently, Smt.B.lakshmamma has sold away her share of Ac.1.33 cents in the said Sy.No.111/3 of Angallu village to one Sri M.Krishna Murthy Naidu and the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurabalakota had taken up the case under Prohibition on Transefer (POT), issued Form I and II notices and after due enquiry, has cancelled the A.M. patta for Ac.1.33 cents out of Ac.3.98 cents in Sy.No.111/3 vide Roc.No.B/262/2004, dated 23.10.2006 and assigned the same to Sri M.Krishna Murthy MSM,J WP_41454_2017 5 Naidu S/o late Venkatappa Naidu as Sy.No.111/5, extent Ac.1.33 cents vide A.M.N0.67/4/1415, dated 04.11.2006. In addition to this he was also granted another DKT patta for the land in Sy.No.111/3, extent Ac.2.50 cents and Sy.No.569/9, extent Ac.0.30 cents Angallu village, vide A.M.No.56/4/141 , dated 23.05.2005. As seen from the pattas granted in favour of M.Krishna Murthy Naidu, it is clear that the pattas were granted under normal Dharkasth Rules but not under Ex-Servicemen quota, his application for grant of DKT patta was not forwarded by the District Sainik Welfare Office, Chittoor through the District Collector, Chittoor and found and moreover the above assignments were made under normal Dharkasth Rules. Further the assignee Sri M.Krishna Murthy Naidu, in his statement appended in the assignment file has stated that he is ekingout his livelihood by cultivation. Therefore, it is clearly found that the Daraksth granted for the land in Sy.Nos.111/3, extent Ac.2.50 cents and Sy.No.111/5, extent Ac.1.33 cents of Angallu village was granted only under normal Dharkasth Rules, as detailed below.
Sl.No. Name of the Sy.No. Extent A.M.No. and date Village
1. 111/3 2.50 56/4/1414 dated
2. 569/9 0.30 23.05.2005 Angallu 3 111/5 1.33 67/4/1415, dated 04.11.2006 It is further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (Assn.1) Department dated 04.07.2016 issuance of NOC to the Ex-Servicemen, Freedom Fighters shall be dispensed with and there shall be no need for obtaining NOC where a period of 10 years from the date of granting DKT patta is expired. But in the instant case the land in Sy.Nos.111/3 and 111/5, but not 111/3D MSM,J WP_41454_2017 6 and 111/3E as stated by the Writ Petitioners to an extent of Ac.2.50 and Ac.1.33 cents in Angallu Village was granted DKT pattas to one Sri M.Krishna Murthy Naidu under normal Darakasth conditions vide A.M.Nos.56/4/1414, dated 23.05.2005 and 67/4/1415 dated 04.11.2006, but not under Ex-Servicemen quota. Therefore the said G.O. is not applicable to the instant case and as per the terms and conditions of the patta, the land in issue is inalienable.
It is further contended that the patta granted in favour of the original assignee is not under 'Ex-Servicemen quota' and it was granted under „Normal Dharkasth Rules‟. On seeing the D-Form patta issued to the original assignee, it is crystal clear that it was issued under 'Normal Dharkasth Rules' with inalienable clause. The word 'Ex-Servicemen' was incorporated subsequently with different handwriting. In the event of grant of patta under Ex-Servicemen quota, there will be clause that the land can be alienated after a period of 10 years.
It is further contended that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad1", parties aggrieved by inclusion of their properties in such lists may apply for their deletion from the list or for modification thereof to the concerned authorities as provided for in the guidelines who shall pass appropriate orders within six weeks and communicate the same to the concerned party. Apart from redressal mechanism, aggrieved person can also approach the appropriate forum including Civil Court for deletion of his property / land from the 1 2016 (1) ALT 550 (FB) MSM,J WP_41454_2017 7 list of prohibited properties or for any appropriate relief. Without availing such remedy, the writ petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and the writ petitioners, alleged legatees under the Will allegedly executed by late late Krishnamurthy Naidu are not entitled to claim any relief, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that when Late Krishna Murthy Naidu was granted DKT patta, as mentioned in the patta itself, he is entitled to deal with the property after expiry of 10 years from the date of grant as per G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993. However, as per G.O.Ms.No.279 dated 04.07.2016 the assignees are entitled to deal with the property by sale or otherwise even without obtaining any permission from the authorities after expiry of 10 years period and direct the authorities concerned to delete the land assigned under Ex-Servicemen quota from the prohibited properties list notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. As such, when the patta was granted in favour of Ex-serviceman, he is entitled to alienate the property. Therefore, refusal to receive the document on the ground that it is included in the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 by the respondents is illegal and arbitrary, requested to issue a direction as sought for by the petitioners.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that patta was not granted under "Ex-servicemen quota", but it was granted under "Dharkasth Rules". Though the occupation of late Krishna Murthy Naidu was mentioned as MSM,J WP_41454_2017 8 "Ex-Servicemen" within the brackets, the record maintained in the office is the basis for such conclusion, but the patta was granted in his favour as landless poor based on the statement of the late Krishna Murthy Naidu available in the assignment register. Hence, the alienation of the property in favour of third parties by executing a Will is impermissible under law, but the property is heritable as per the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the petitioners, who are the legatees under the Will are only legal representatives not legal heirs as per Hindu Succession Act. Consequently, they are not entitled to claim any relief since no right will accrue to the petitioners on account of issue of pattadar passbook and title deeds in their favour, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Grant of assignment of land in an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.111/3D and Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.569/9 of Angallu village in favour of Late Krishna Murthy Naidu is not in dispute. Copy of D.Form patta is placed on record. In the column provided for name of the beneficiary in Patta AM No.56/4/1414, it is noted as "M.Krishnamurthy Naidu (Ex-servicemen)." The D.Form patta was granted subject to conditions as stipulated in the ordinary patta issued under Dharkasth Rules. Similarly, another D-Form patta vide AM.No.167/06 dated 06.11.2016 was issued assigning an extent of Ac.1.33 cents in Sy.No.111/5 and 111/3E of Angallu Village in favour of Late Krishnamurthy Naiduk is also placed on record. In the said patta, the name of the beneficiary is mentioned as "M.Krishnamurthy Naidu (Ex-Servicemen)", but the conditions contained therein are only relating to patta issued in favour of landless poor under Dharkasth Rules. Issue of pattadar passbooks and title deeds mutating the name of M.Krishnamurthy Naidu is MSM,J WP_41454_2017 9 also not in dispute. The only question before this Court is „whether the patta was issued as per Dharkasth Rules or under the Ex-servicemen quota?"
The documents produced by the petitioners along with the writ petition more particularly D-form pattas would clinchingly establish that the patta was granted in favour of M.Krishnamurthy Naidu incorporating the conditions of grant under Dharkasth Rules. The contention of the petitioners before this Court is that the name of M.Krishnamurthy Naidu was mutated in the revenue records, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in their favour. Therefore, grant of patta is only under Ex-servicemen quota but not as landless poor since the beneficiary M.Krishnamurthy Naidu will never be landless poor within the definition of „landless poor person‟ as defined under Section 2 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, which is as follows:
2 (3) "landless poor person" means a person who owns an extent of land not more than 1.011715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or 2.023430 hectares (five acres) of dry land or such other extent of land as has been or may be specified by the Government in this behalf, from time to time and who has no other means of livelihood"
No document is filed to establish that the name of the deceased M.Krishnamurthy was mutated in the revenue records as pattadar being Ex-serviceman.
There is specific provision for issue of patta in favour of Ex-servicemen in Andhra Pradesh Revenue Board Standing Order i.e. BSO-15 Para- 11(2). The conditions to be incorporated in the patta granted in favour of Ex-servicemen are totally different from MSM,J WP_41454_2017 10 the conditions to be imposed in the patta issued to the landless poor. In the present case, D-Form patta granted in favour of M.Krishnamurthy Naidu is in the nature of land assigned to the landless poor as permitted in BSO 15.
Merely because mentioning of word „Ex-servicemen‟ within brackets against the name of M.Krishnamurthy Naidu in the column provided for name of beneficiary, it cannot be treated as patta granted in favour of "Ex-servicemen". For issue of patta in favour of „landless poor‟, conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30.04.1963 as pleaded in paragraph No.7 of the counter are to be fulfilled. First condition is that he must be native of Andhra Pradesh, serving in the defence forces of India, will, after demobilization, be eligible for the assignment of land in their own village. In case of death of Jawan after demobilization and before grant of land, his family will also be entitled to the grant of land. Here, family means wife, son, unmarried daughter and widowed mother in that order of preference, if there is more than one son or unmarried daughter, the eldest will get preference. The Jawans who are demised or discharged from service due to inefficiency or misconduct or whose character is assessed as bad on demobilization are not eligible for grant of land.
Even otherwise, as per B.S.O.15(11)(2)(ii), all Jawans domiciled in Andhra Pradesh and serving in the defence forces of India, will after demobilisation be eligible for the assignment of lands in their own villages or elsewhere. However, as per B.S.O.15(11)(2)(ii)(g), applications for assignment of lands from the soldiers serving in the army shall be considered in case their MSM,J WP_41454_2017 11 families volunteer to take up cultivation on their behalf, subject to the condition that if a jawan who has been allotted land is not demobilised in the normal course but has been dismissed or court- martialled, the land assigned to such person would revert to the Government.
A perusal of D-form pattas granted in favour of M.Krishnamurthy, it is clear that they were only pattas granted as landless poor based on proforma of patta, but not patta under Ex-servicemen quota as his application was not forwarded by the District Sainik Welfare Office, Chittoor to the Revenue Department. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the pattas were issued under Ex-servicemen quota by mentioning his designation against his name as "Ex-servicemen" is hereby rejected as it is not sufficient to conclude that the patta was issued under "Ex-servicemen quota". The petitioners being the legatees under the Will diverting the general rules of succession, are not entitled to claim any right in the property.
Will, even though a testamentary disposition, is not permissible in the case of assigned land covered by the Act 9 of 1977 in favour of strangers to the family, a will can be executed by the assignee under the Act 9 of 1977 only in favour of his family members and not to strangers (Vide: Katta Yesuratnam v. Commissioner, Land Revenue, A.P.2) In view of the law declared by this Court in the judgment (referred supra), the claim of the petitioners is hereby rejected. 2 1993 (1) ALT 200 MSM,J WP_41454_2017 12 As seen from the material on record, the prohibited properties list was issued by respondent No.4, Tahsildar. But the Tahsildar is incompetent to communicate the list of the prohibited properties, at best, he is entitled to communicate the list to the District Collector, who in turn issue such proceedings in view of the plain language used in Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
As per the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners, the said property was not notified as prohibitory property under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
In this connection, it is necessary to peruse the guidelines issued by the State Government, to which my attention was drawn during the course of hearing by learned counsel for the parties. The State Government issued certain guidelines vide Circular Memo No. G1/19131/05, dt. 14-09-2007 to all concerned to be followed while exercising powers under clauses (a) to (d) of sub- section (1) of Section 22 of the Registration Act, in particular (for short the guidelines). The guidelines read thus:
"Section 22-A Certain guidelines [Circular Memo No. G1/19131/05, dt. 14-09-2007] Sub: Registration and Stamps Department - Registration (A.P. Amendment) Act 2007 - Act No. 19 of 2007 relating to Section 22-A Certain Guidelines issued Regarding.
The Government have notified through G.O. Ms. No. 863 Revenue (Reg.I) Department, dt. 20.06.2007 bringing the Registration (A.P. Amendment) Act 2007 into force from 20.06.2007. The amendment relates to Section 22-A which prohibits registration of certain documents. In pursuance of the Government notification of the Act No. 19 of 2007, the following guidelines and directions are issued to all concerned to implement the provisions of the Act:
MSM,J WP_41454_2017 13 (1) S.22-A(1)(a):2 For the purposes of Section 22-A(1)(a) all the District Collectors shall furnish lists of properties prohibited under the statutes to the Registering Officers having jurisdiction over such property and also the District Registrar, Deputy Inspector General (R & S) concerned and to Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in the proforma appended in Annexure I under proper acknowledgment.
Subsequent additions, if any also shall be sent in the same manner. The list must be signed by Collector/Joint Collector of the district. Any deletions or modifications to these lists should be sent to Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, who in turn will furnish the same to the concerned Registering Officers having jurisdiction over such property, for necessary action. (2) S.22-A(1)(b): For the purposes of Section 22-A(1)(b), the District Collectors shall furnish the lists of immovable properties owned by the State or Central Government as the case may be to the Registering Officers having jurisdiction over such property and also the District Registrar, Deputy Inspector General (R & S) concerned and Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in the proforma appended in Annexure II. The list must be signed by the concerned authorised representative of Central/State Government as the case may be. All authorization for presentation and execution of documents executed by the persons statutorily empowered to do so shall be accompanied by Government orders issued by the concerned department/ Ministry of the State or Central Government along with signature of the person so authorised to present or execute the documents duly attested by the District Collector.
Any deletions or modifications to these lists should be sent to Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, who in turn will furnish the same to the concerned Registering Officers having jurisdiction over such property, for necessary action. (3) S.22-A(1)(c): For the purposes of Section 22-A(1)(c) the lists of properties owned by religious and charitable endowments falling under the purview of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or under the Wakf Act, 1985 to the Registering Officers having jurisdiction over such property and also the District Registrar, Deputy Inspector General (R&S) concerned and Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in the proforma appended in Annexure-III. The list must be signed by Commissioner, Endowments or Secretary, Wakf Board, as the case may be.
All authorizations by the persons statutorily empowered to alienate these properties shall be accompanied by notification issued by the MSM,J WP_41454_2017 14 concerned Administrative Department in Government and the signature attested by the concerned Head of the Department.
Any deletions or modifications to these lists should be sent to Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, who in turn will furnish the same to the concerned Registering Officers having jurisdiction over such property, for necessary action.
(4) S.22-A(1)(d) : for the purposes of Section 22-A(1)(d) lists of land declared as surplus lands under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 or the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 shall be furnished by the Revenue authorities (Not below the rank of RDO) and the Special Officer and Competent Authority under ULC Act concerned as the case may be to the Registering Officer having jurisdiction over such property and also to the District Registrar, Deputy Inspector General and Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in the proforma appended in Annexure IV.
Any deletions or modifications to these lists should be sent to Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, who in turn will furnish the same to the concerned Registering Officers having jurisdiction over such property, for necessary action.
(5) All the Registering Officers and the District Registrars on receipt of the intimations/notifications from the Authorised Officers as mentioned above, under sub-sections (a) to (d) of Section 22-A(1) shall enter them in the prohibited property registers maintained electronically and also manually and confirm the fact of having made the entries to the Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the intimations/notifications.
(6) All the intimations or notifications forwarded by the Authorised Officers, in this regard to the concerned Registering Officers/District Registrars shall be filed in a separate new file book (It shall be a PERMANENT REGISTER) titled as intimations/notifications of prohibited properties under Section 22-A and also publish such details on web site duly updating the information from time to time. The deletions/modifications to these lists forwarded by the C&IG, shall also be filed in the same file book in chronological order.
(7) RECONCILIATION: DIGs will be responsible for ensuring that details available with Registering Officers are reconciled with Details available with his/her and DR office once in a quarter (January, March, June, Sept.). A periodical report will be sent to C&IG Office along with the list in Jan. and June every year. The DIG, shall certify that all the entries are made in prohibited registers maintained by the officers electronically MSM,J WP_41454_2017 15 and manually and no document was registered during this period affecting the prohibited properties.
(8) Registration done between 1.4.99 and 20.6.07: All the registrations completed between 1st April, 1999 up to the commencement of Act 19 of 2007 i.e., 20.06.2007, disregarding the prohibitions under Section 22-A notifications, shall be invalidated by making Contra entries under the concerned entry in Volume and Indexes, electronically, under intimation to parties concerned by RPAD/AD. The Registering Officers shall immediately refuse to register the documents which are kept pending during the above period since the re-enacted Act has validated all the notifications issued by the Government basing on the previous provisions of Section 22-A. (9) Refusals: All refusals under Section 22-A(3) and invalidations under Section 22-A(3/5) shall be entered in book 2 Volume, and an extract of the entry shall be furnished to the person presenting the documents after duly recording the reasons for the refusal or the invalidation in the endorsements. The endorsements or refusal order should disclose the details of intimation/notification through which the subject properties are liable for refusal or registrations.
(10) For the classes of documents mentioned in clause (e) of Section 22-A(1) the State Government will notify the properties. Whenever such notifications are issued by the Government, the Registering Officers shall file them in the above prescribed file register and also make necessary entries in the prohibition registers maintained by them electronically and manually.
(emphasis supplied) The guidelines, thus, provide the procedure for preparing lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A and as to who is supposed to forward such list and to whom. Clauses (a) & (b) provide that it is the District Collectors alone shall furnish lists of properties prohibited under the statutes of immovable properties owned by the State and Central Governments. It further provides that the list should be forwarded to registering officers having jurisdiction over such property and also to the District Registrar, Deputy Inspector General (R&S) concerned and to the Commissioner and Inspector General of MSM,J WP_41454_2017 16 Registration and Stamps in the proforma appended as Annexure I and II to the guidelines under proper acknowledgment. Even deletions and modifications to these lists also are required to be sent to these authorities. These guidelines, in our opinion, need to be followed scrupulously. In other words, lists of properties covered under clauses (a) & (b) of Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act shall be furnished only by the District Collectors to the aforementioned authorities under the Registration Act. The concerned registering officer, Registrar or Sub-Registrar as the case may be, shall act on the lists of properties covered by clauses
(a) & (b) only and only when the list is forwarded to them by the District Collectors. Thus, the question of forwarding of lists of properties covered by clauses (a) & (b) by the officers of different departments to the registering authorities directly does not arise and if the registering officers receive any lists directly from different departments, officers of the Government (other than the District Collectors), he is not expected to look into such lists and act upon them. The officers of different departments should forward their list to the District Collector, who in turn is expected to examine the list and after having satisfied of its correctness may forward it further to the aforementioned authorities. In short, the District Collector is not expected to act as postmen. If list of prohibited property is received by the registering officer directly, the registering officers at the most can return such lists to the concerned department requesting them to forward it through the concerned District Collectors, who, under the Guidelines, are enjoined with the duty of furnishing the lists to the authorities mentioned above in the office of Registration and Stamps.
MSM,J WP_41454_2017 17 Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 is as follows:
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 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.
(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.
MSM,J WP_41454_2017 18 (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issued under clause (e) of sub-section (1).
(4) The State Government either suo motu or on an application by any person or for giving effect to the final orders of the High Court of Telangana or Supreme Court of India may proceed to de-notify, either in full or in part, the notification issued under sub-section (2). Hence, communication sent by Tahsildar including the property in the prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 to respondent No.5 is illegal, arbitrary and without authority as per law and without jurisdiction. Therefore, communication sent by Tahsildar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 by respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 is in violation of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Thereby, the communication of prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 by respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 is declared as illegal and when it is declared as illegal, respondent No.5 is bound to receive and register the document in case no prohibited properties list was communicated by the competent officer i.e. District Collector in terms of Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that the list communicated by respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 is illegal and without jurisdiction and the same is hereby declared as violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Consequently, respondent No.5 is directed to receive and register the document in the absence of any prohibition imposed on registration of document by competent authority under the provisions of the Registration Act.
MSM,J WP_41454_2017 19 In the result, the writ petition is allowed declaring the list communicated by the respondents No.4 including the land in an extent of Ac.3.14 cents out of Ac.3.88 cents in Sy.No.111/3D and 111/3E of Angallu Village fields, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District as assigned land, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently respondent No.5 is directed to receive and register the Sale Deed for the land in an extent of Ac.3.14 cents out of Ac.3.88 cents in Sy.No.111/3D and 111/3E of Angallu Village fields, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District if it is otherwise in accordance with the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Indian Registration Act, 1908. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 13.04.2022 Ksp