Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kasireddy Ashok Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 October, 2020
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Writ Petition No.18712 of 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-
".....to issue an order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in refusing to mutate the petitioner's name into the revenue records for the land admeasuring Ac.3.50 cents covered by Sy.No.230/1 of Ananthaiahgaripally Village, Pullampet Mandal, Kadapa District and also furnish title deed and pattadar pass book in favour of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and against the law laid down by this Court in W.A.No.950 of 2007; consequently direct the 3rd respondent to mutate the petitioner's name into the revenue records for the land admeasuring Ac.3.50 cents covered by Sy.No.230/1 of Ananthaiahgaripally Village, Pullampet Mandal, Kadapa District and also furnish title deed and pattadar pass book in favour of the petitioner; declare the action of 5th respondent in not register the documents in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.No.230/1 of Ananthaiahgaripally Village, Pullampet Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and against the law laid down by this Court in W.A.No.950 of 2007 and consequently direct the 5th respondent to register the documents in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.No.230/1, Ananthaiahgaripally Village, Pullampet Mandal, Kadapa District."
2. Originally, the land admeasuring Ac.1.75 cents each covered by Sy.No.230/1 of Ananthaiahgaripally Village, Pullampet Mandal, Kadapa District, were assigned in favour of one Mallela Saraswathamma and Mallela Subbarayudu (hereinafter referred as assignees). The assignees obtained loan from the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Ananthaiahgaripally, Pullampet, 2 Kadapa District, by mortgaging the said land. When the loan amounts was not repaid to the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Ananthaiahgaripally, Pullampet, which is a society under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, obtained an award in its favour, brought the said land for sale in the execution of Award Nos.49/2010-11 & 50/2010-11, dated 01.12.2020, accordingly the public auction had been held, one Padasala Ramaiah purchased the said lands in the auction held, in the execution of awards and was also issued Sale Certificate, dated 29.06.2012.
3. The 5th respondent on receiving the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.22463 of 2012 registered the gift deed executed by Padasala Ramaiah gifting the said lands in favour of his sister Mallela Aruna, who is the vendor of the petitioner.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17918 of 2019 and this Court again relying on the principles laid down in W.A.No.950 of 2007 on the file of this Court, allowed the writ petition by judgment, dated 11.12.2019, directing the 5th respondent to receive and register the documents of the petitioner. The 5th respondent/Sub-Registrar, Pullampet, Kadapa District, on receiving the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.17918 of 2019, registered the sale deed vide document No.1108 of 2020, dated 17.01.2020. After registration of the documents, as on today pattadar pass book and title deed are still in the name of the vendor of the petitioner. The petitioner for his personal necessities intended to sell the property, but on account of failure to mutate 3 the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, the property could not be sold.
5. Further, the respondents are insisting for production of similar orders to mutate and entertain the sale deed for registration of the subject land, even though this Court already passed orders in favour of the vendor's brother for the same subject land in W.P.No.22463 of 2012, again the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.17918 of 2019 and requested to mutate the name of the petitioner in the land revenue records, in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.No.230/1, Ananthaiahgaripally Village, Pullampet Mandal, Kadapa District, and requested to issue a direction as stated supra.
6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit filed along with the petition, mainly pointing out that the respondents are not mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records though a registered sale deed was obtained by him in the land in dispute and it is contrary to law declared by this Court in various judgments particularly in W.P.No.17918 of 2019 and requested to issue a direction to the respondents. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue requested this Court to issue necessary direction to the respondent authorities to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, if any application through Mee-seva is submitted, as per G.O.Ms.No.259, Revenue (Assignment) Department dated 21.06.2016.
4
7. As seen from the material available on record, the petitioner purchased the property and obtained a registered sale deed from his vendor, but no application is made through Mee-seva for mutation of his name in terms of Section 4 of Andhra Pradesh [Rights in Land] and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (Act No. 26 of 1971) in Form-VI (A). In the absence of any such application, this Court cannot issue a direction to the respondents to mutate the name of the petitioner in revenue records. Hence, the 3rd respondent is directed to mutate the name of the petitioner in revenue records, on making any application by the petitioner in Form-VI (A) through Mee-seva on payment of requisite fee for such mutation, if the petitioner satisfied the requirement as per the Act.
8. The petitioner also claimed a relief against the 5th respondent to declare the action of 5th respondent as illegal. But, the reason for failure to register the document is that the name of the petitioner was not mutated in the revenue records and name of the petitioner is not reflecting in the revenue records. When, once mutation of the name of the petitioner is taken place in the revenue records the 5th respondent is bound to register the document, if any, executed by the petitioner in favour of third party on its presentation.
9. Therefore, it is only a consequence of grant of relief in clauses (a) and (b) and no separate direction need be issued as this Court is sure that the 5th respondent/Sub-Registrar, Pullampet, Kadapa District will register the document, if any, executed on its presentation, subsequent to the mutation of the name of the 5 petitioner in the revenue records for the land admeasuring Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.No.230/1, Ananthaiahgaripally Village, Pullampet Mandal, Kadapa District, on submitting an application in Form- VI(A) by following necessary procedure prescribed under the Act and principles laid down Chinnam Panduranga Rao vs. Mandal Revenue Officer1. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to submit Form-VI (A) application online. On filing such application, respondent No.3/Tahsildar, Pullampet Mandal, Kadapa District, is directed to examine the same, take necessary action and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible.
10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated: 16.10.2020 IS 1 AIR 2008 AP 15 (FB) 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Writ Petition No.18712 of 2020 Date: 16-10-2020 IS