Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
India vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its ... on 17 November, 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.10528 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.9/RPSCBS/2020-3, dated 25.01.2021 addressed by 4th respondent to 3rd respondent thereby including petitioner's building property bearing Plot No.198 an extent of 252 Sq.Yards measuring to 240 Sq.Yards on ground in Sy.No.135 of Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation Revenue limits in Bhaskar Nagar area of East Godavari District in prohibitory list for registration and not allowing any deed of conveyance being presented by petitioner connected to said property for registration as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to remove petitioner's said property from the prohibited list of properties for registration being maintained by 3rd respondent and pass such other order or orders...."
The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of property bearing plot No.198 admeasuring 252 sq.yards comprising 240 sq.yards in Sy.No.135 of Bhaskar Nagar, Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation Area, East Godavari District, having purchased the same from petitioner's vendor Sri Ketha Kavya, who was the legitimate owner thereof under Registered Sale Deed Documents bearing No.9589/2019, dated 02.11.2019, for valid consideration.
While it is so, the 3rd respondent included petitioner's building property bearing Plot No.198 admeasuring 252 sq.yards compromising 240 sq.yards in Sy.No.135 of Bhaskar Nagar, Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation area, East Godavari District in prohibitory list under the instructions of 4th respondent vide their proceedings in 2 Ref.No.9/RPSCBS/2020-3, dated 25.01.2021 and consequentially turning out her afore said property un-alienable, being illegal, irregular and violative of provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
Since the 4th respondent is incompetent to address a letter to include the property of this petitioner in the prohibitory property list under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Act, requested to set aside the order declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary.
The 4th respondent filed a detailed counter ascertaining title to the property and possession and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
During hearing, Mr.Seetharam Chaparla, learned counsel, drawn the attention of this Court to Section 22-A(1)(e), where the notification is mandatory to include the property in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, in the absence of any notification by the State Government, the letter addressed by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent vide Ref.No.9/RPSCBS/2020-3, dated 25.01.2021, and prohibiting the property from alienation by the 4th respondent to 3rd respondent is illegal and arbitrary and requested to issue a direction.
The 4th respondent is an Assistant Registrar/Liquidator, the Rajahmundry Public Services Co-Operative Building Society limited No.B.114, Bhaskar Nagar, Rajahmundry addressed a letter stating that the property was allotted to the persons who are not members of the Society and on the application of Mr.M.Chandrasekhar, registered documents are executed in favour of 23 persons previously mentioned by Vigilance and Enforcement Officer in their report by the department and to blacklist them for further action on the plots and thus in view of 3 the black list of plots, the property is kept under prohibitory property list by the 3rd respondent.
The 4th respondent is the person who addressed a letter to prohibit registration of the property bearing plot No.198 of the petitioner in 252 sq.yards. But, as per the judgment of Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in "Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad (W.A.Nos.343 of 2015, 232 of 2012, and 352 of 2013 dated 23.12.2015)" in depth considered the provisions contained in Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and summarised its conclusions, the relevant conclusions are as follows:
(iii) Insofar as paragraphs (3) and (4) in the Guidelines, covering properties under clause (c) and (d) are concerned, the authorities contemplated therein shall also forward to the registering authorities, along with lists, the extracts of registers/gazette if the property is covered by either endowment or wakf, and declarations/orders made under the provisions of Ceiling Acts if the property is covered under clause (d).
(xii) The directions issued by learned single Judges in six judgments referred to above or any other judgments dealing with the provisions of Section 22-A, if they are inconsistent with the observations made or directions issued in this judgment, it is made clear that the observations made and directions issued in this judgment shall prevail and would be binding on the parties including the registering authorities under the Registration Act or Government Officials or the officials under the Endowments Act, Wakf Act and Ceiling Acts."
As per the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.A.No.343 of 2015, 232 of 2012 and 352 of 2013 as per the circular memo of the Commissioner and Inspector General, Stamps and Registration Department vide G1/19131/2005, dated 13.04.2018, the competent authority to modify/delete lists furnished under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act, is the Commissioner, Endowments or Secretary, Wakf Board and as per circular issued by the Government, District Collector is the Competent 4 Authority to notify the property or include on behalf of the State or to notify the property under Section 22 A (1)(e) of the Registration Act.
If the property falls under Section 22(a)(1)(e) of the Registration Act, the notification by the State is required. In this case, no notification was issued as mandated under Section 22(a)(1)(e) of the Registration Act, the subject property is prohibited simply by inclusion of the property in prohibited property list and thereby such inclusion as a property is contrary to the Mandatory requirement under Section 22(a)(1)(e) of Registration Act and as per judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "P.S.R. Subrahmanyam v. Commissioner of Endowments1" "Secretary to Government, Revenue Department v. Sri Swamy Ayyappa Co-Operative Society2,"S.Manikya Reddy v. the A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad and another [W.P.No.29937/2013], "Sri Ganesha Parvathi Sametha Chodeswara Swamy Alaya Abhivruddi Sangam (Regd.No.430/2015) rep. by its President Sri S.Ramakum Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department and 7 others [W.P.No.34844/2017]", "Kum. Shashikala v. Smt. Babita Sharma [Civil Revision Petition No.4596/2017]".
Hence, the letter addressed by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondents is declared as illegal and arbitrary and without any authority of law and the same is liable to be set aside. 1 1997 (6) ALT 346 (AP) 2 2003 (6) ALD 225 (AP) 5 In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the letter addressed by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent is illegal and arbitrary and liable to set aside the letter.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 05.11.2021 VSL 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.10528 OF 2021 Date: 05.11.2021 VSL