This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order, dated 18.01.2013, of respondent No.2, whereby he has refused to register the sale deed sought to be presented by the petitioner in respect of house property admeasuring Ac.0.09 cents comprised in Survey No.272/2 of Avanigadda Revenue Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

2. I have heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the only ground on which respondent No.2 refused to register the sale deed sought to be presented by the petitioner is the purported communication, dated 16.08.2010, through which respondent No.3 informed him that the above-mentioned property is included in the list of prohibited properties.

4. The petitioner pleaded that the above-mentioned land was initially assigned to a private party on 14.12.1933; that the legal heirs of the assignee sold the same under registered sale deed, dated 06.09.2000, in favour of one Simhadri Srinivasa Rao, who is stated to have constructed a building over the said land and availed a loan from the State Bank of India, Agricultural Development Branch, Avanigadda (for short ‘the bank’); and that in view of the default committed by Simhadri Srinivasa Rao, owner of the said property, the same was put to auction, in which one Repalle Venkata Ramanjaneyulu has purchased it and registered sale deed, dated 31.05.2008, was executed in his favour by the bank. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that the said purchaser has obtained loan from the bank and he has also committed default and that for recovery of the loan amount, the property was once again put to auction, in which the petitioner purchased it. When the petitioner and the bank presented the sale deed for registration, consequent on the auction, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order. The petitioner has filed the sale deed and the relevant material in support of the above-noted averments.

5. In an elaborate judgment in Raavi Satish Vs. Andhra Pradesh and others(2013 (2) ALD 1), this Court held that mere inclusion of the properties in the prohibitory list by the revenue authorities would not deter the Registering Officers from registering the documents and that such prohibitory list cannot be elevated to the status of a statutory notification under Section 22-A (2) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). This Court also held that if assignments were made prior to 18.06.1954, on which date G.O.Ms.No.1104 was issued envisaging prohibition of transfer of assigned lands for the first time, the Registering Officers shall not refuse to register the document(s) only on the ground that the lands covered by the said document(s) are assigned lands.

6. In the instant case, what this Court is unable to comprehend is that if the property in question is not a private property and belongs to “Police Diary”, as described in the purported prohibitory list of respondent No.3, how the State and its executive apparatus have allowed the property to be transferred under two registered sale deeds dated 06.09.2000 and dated 31.05.2008. The sale deed last registered was as recent as 31.05.2008. The revenue authorities need to show proper responsibility in preparing the so-called prohibitory list and they cannot be oblivious of the previous history of the property and solely guided by the so-called entries in the records such as Resurvey and Settlement register.

7. As held in Raavi Satish (supra), mere registration of the property will not create title in the purchaser and that if the vendor has no title in the property, the purchaser will not derive any title only on account of registration and that registration of a document will not absolve the vendor and the purchaser from the legal proceedings that may be initiated by the State for recovery of possession of the land, if the same is proved to belong to the Government