Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B V A S Chandra Sekhar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 December, 2020
Author: M. Ganga Rao
Bench: M. Ganga Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
Writ Petition Nos.21483, 21484, 21489, 21494, 21496, 21500,
21508, 21517, 21519, 21523, 21529 & 21553 of 2020
COMMON ORDER:
All these writ petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order as the facts & law and the issues raised in all these writ petitions are one and the same.
Questioning the orders of the District Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department, Visakhapatnam District, rejecting the appeals of the petitioners on the ground that the appeals are not presented within 30 days of the refusal orders, the present writ petitions are filed.
Heard Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.
The case of the petitioners is that they intended to purchase plots in Sarada Nagar Lay out situated in Survey No.151/1C, Vepagunta village, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam. They paid some amounts towards advance and got draft sale deeds prepared and presented the same before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gopalapatnam, for verification. The Sub-Registrar informed the petitioners that the documents would not be received and registered. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached the combined High Court of AP by filing writ petitions and the writ petitions were disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar, Gopalapatnam, to receive, process the documents presented by the petitioners and complete the registration formalities and release the documents if the same were in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act. Thereafter, the petitioners 2 MGR,J WP_21483_2020 & batch got executed the sale deeds by their vendors by paying the balance sale consideration and presented the documents for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Gopalapatnam, by paying the registration charges and stamp duty. The petitioners were informed that the documents would be verified and registered and they would be informed to collect the registered sale deeds. As the petitioners did not receive any intimation, they approached the office of the Sub-Registrar. Upon enquiries, they came to know that the sale deeds were kept pending and were assigned pending numbers on account of some clarification required by the Sub- Registrar's office. Thereafter the petitioners approached the Sub- Registrar on several times. The registration of the documents was postponed on one pretext or the other. While so, when the petitioners approached the office of the Sub-Registrar in the month of October, 2020, they were informed that the pending documents of the petitioners were rejected in the year 2018 and asked to collect the said documents with the refusal orders. Accordingly, they collected the documents. As could be seen from the contents of the refusal orders, the reason assigned for rejection was on the ground that Survey No.151/1C of Vepagunta village is in the list of endowment lands. Though the document seems to have been refused by the then Joint Sub-Registrar in the year 2018, the orders were not communicated to the petitioners till they approached the Office of the Sub-Registrar in the month of October, 2020. Aggrieved by the said refusal orders, the petitioners approached the District Registrar, by filing appeals along with relevant documents and requested to set aside the refusal orders and direct the Sub-Registrar to register the petitioners' property. The 2nd respondent vide the impugned orders rejected the appeals of the petitioners on the ground that the appeals have been presented after expiry of appeal period of 30 days from the date of refusal orders as provided under 3 MGR,J WP_21483_2020 & batch Section 72 of the Registration Act. Therefore he cannot accept/admit the appeals against the refusal orders and accordingly rejected the appeals of the petitioners. Aggrieved of the said orders of the 2nd respondent, these writ petitions came to be filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent ought to have seen that the purport of prescription of limitation of 30 days in Section 72 of the Registration Act has to be reckoned from the date of communication of the refusal order of the Joint Sub-Registrar. The 2nd respondent failed to see that unless the petitioners were served with the refusal orders, the question of starting of limitation does not arise. They could not avail the appellate remedy, within the prescribed period of limitation, without knowing the passing of refusal orders. Therefore, the period of 30 days should not be reckoned from the date of the order but has to be computed from the date of receipt of the order. Section 71 of the Registration Act specifically states that if the Sub-Registrar refuses to register the document, he has to record the reasons and without any delay communicate the same to the executants. However, though the refusal orders were said to have been passed in the year 2018, the same were not communicated to the petitioners immediately and they came to know of the said refusal orders only when they approached the office of the Sub-Registrar in the month of October, 2020. In the said circumstances, the action of the District Registrar in rejecting the appeals without appreciating and ascertaining the fact of service of refusal orders on the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. Though the petitioners have valid case on merits, the appeals have been rejected by the District Registrar on wholly untenable grounds and without proper understanding of the provision of Section 72 of the Registration Act and 4 MGR,J WP_21483_2020 & batch caused mental agony and hardship to the petitioners. They were also meted out irreparable loss.
I have perused the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent. In the impugned orders, the 2nd respondent inter alia observed to the effect that 'The refusal order is of the year 2018. The appeals have been presented in the year 2020 though the time for presentation of the appeals is 30 days from the date of refusal order is exhausted/barred/expired/lapsed. Thus, there is no provision to accept/admit the appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 against the refusal order. Hence, the requisition is rejected.' It is the case of the petitioners that though the refusal orders were passed in the year 2018, the same were not served on them. They came to know about the refusal orders only in the month of October, 2020 when they went to the office of the Sub-Registrar to enquire about the status of their pending documents and immediately within 30 days thereafter, they presented the appeals before the District Registrar. But, the District Registrar, without examining the facts and circumstances of the case, simply rejected the appeals on the ground that the appeals are not presented within limitation period from the date of the refusal orders.
The law is well settled that the words 'from the date of the order' shall be interpreted in such a way as to carry out the purpose for which the remedy is provided and making the said remedy meaningful, practical and effective. In Nakka Surya Bhagavan and another v. State of AP [2011(2) ALD 338] relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners, the erstwhile High Court of AP following the decision of the Supreme Court in D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India and another [(2003) 6 SCC 5 MGR,J WP_21483_2020 & batch 186] held that the time period of 30 days from the date of order as envisaged in Sections 72 and 71 has to be construed as 'from the date of receipt of order.' Thus, when an appeal is preferred before the 2nd respondent - District Registrar against an order of refusal, he being a quasi judicial authority, is supposed to call for the records and find out as to whether the refusal order was communicated to the party concerned within a reasonable time to enable him to avail the appellate remedy. However, a reading of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent does not anywhere reflect that such an exercise is done by the 2nd respondent. He simply rejected the appeals on the ground that the appeals are not presented within 30 days of the date of refusal orders. The 2nd respondent ought to have passed an order giving reasons by calling records from the Sub-Registrar to verify when the refusal orders were served on the petitioners.
The 2nd respondent, being appellate authority discharging quasi- judicial functions, is expected to know the law and discharge his functions as per law. But the 2nd respondent passed the impugned cryptic orders in a casual manner, without giving reasons expected of from the appellate authority, which enables the petitioners to know the reasons for rejection of their appeals and where they stand, whether there are any grounds or on what grounds they should avail other legal remedies available to them effectively. The Rule of reason is antithesis to arbitrariness in action and is necessary concomitance of principles of natural justice.
This Court, following the decisions of the Apex Court, in catena of decisions, held that every decision or order of the administrative officer or quasi judicial authority is amenable to judicial review exercisable by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the 6 MGR,J WP_21483_2020 & batch Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, have the power to quash by certiorari a quasi-judicial order made by an administrative officer and this power of review exercisable by issuance of certiorari can be effectively exercised only if the order is a speaking order and reasons are given in support of it. If no reasons are given, it would not be possible to the High Court or the Supreme Court exercising its power of judicial review to examine whether the administrative officer has made any error of law in making the order. The result would be that the power of judicial review would be stultified and no redress being available to the citizen, there would be insidious encouragement to arbitrariness and caprice. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitions deserve to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, while setting aside the orders impugned in the writ petitions, the matters are remanded back to the 2nd respondent, directing the 2nd respondent to decide the appeals afresh by passing reasoned orders, after calling for the record from the Sub-Registrar, Gopalapatnam, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the decisions thereon to the petitioners.
The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, allowed. However, as the 2nd respondent passed the impugned orders without application of his mind and without assigning any reasons, which lead to the filing of these writ petitions ineffectively, this Court felt it appropriate to mulct the costs of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousands only] on the 2nd respondent, payable to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority, from his personal 7 MGR,J WP_21483_2020 & batch pay, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ M. GANGA RAO, J 19.11.2020 Vjl