The petitioners state that their ancestors owned an extent of Ac.7.08 guntas of land in Survey No.383/2 of Torrur Village, Hayatnagr Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and that the said land was the subject matter of partition under Document No.2736 of 1976. It is also stated that Ac.3.00 of the said land was gifted to the 2nd petitioner through document No.769/91 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Vanasthalipuram, 2nd respondent herein. The first petitioner is said to be the owner of Ac.2.06 guntas of land.

The petitioners intended to sell a part of the land referred to above. They claim to have approached the 2nd respondent herein with a request to furnish the particulars of market value, stamp duty, registration fee etc. Their grievance is that the 2nd respondent is refusing to furnish the particulars on the ground that the land in Survey No.383/2 was included in the list of Government properties and the 2nd respondent is enforcing the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act (for short ‘the Act’).

The petitioners submit that at no pint of time, the land was held by the Government. It is also their case that not only the names of their ancestors were shown in the Khasra pahani for year 1954-55, but also they were issued pattadar pass books and title deeds recently by the concerned revenue authorities.

The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit. According to him, the land in Survey No.383 is Ac.259.10 guntas and the sub-division of the said land was done contrary to the prescribed procedure. It is further stated that the entries in the revenue records were not properly made and that the land continues to be held by the Government.

Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

Section 22-A of the Act was introduced recently with a view to prohibit the registration of documents executed in respect of the properties owned by the Government. Initially, the purport of the Section was that any document which affects the public interest cannot be registered and the Government was clothed with the power to issue a G.O. showing the list of properties held by them. The execution of any document in respect of the lands mentioned in the G.O. was to be treated per se as opposed to public policy. That provision was set aside by this Court, following the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata (2005 (7) Scale 164).

In the place of the provision, which was struck down by this Court, the State Legislature enacted Section 22-A of the Act with a different context. It prohibits registration of documents pertaining to the properties. which fall in five categories i.e., Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-Section (1). One such item is the properties owned by the State or Central Government. The registering authority would naturally be guided by the particulars furnished by the revenue authorities as regards the identification of the properties owned by the Government.

For all practical purposes, the Revenue Department and the authorities thereof felt that their power to include an item of land in the list to be supplied to the Sub-Register is unguided. Indiscriminately, the lands held in as patta or otherwise were included giving raise to spate of litigation. Though the objective underlying Section 22-A of the Act is laudable, in quite large number of instances, citizens are put to hardship and made to go around the Courts in the matter of effecting transfer of their properties.

In the instant case, the petitioners have stated that the names of their ancestors were mentioned in the pahanies of the year 1951 and the same entries were repeated in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55. It is also pleaded by them that their names be entered in the registers, as and how the succession or partition has taken place and ultimately, they were issued pattadar pass books and title deeds by the revenue authorities