Back
2021 Supreme(AP) 442
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
B. Vimala Adilakshmi - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1983 of 2021
Decided On : 09-07-2021
A writ of mandamus is a discretionary relief and can only be issued when the petitioner is able to prove a subsisting right or interest in the property and an infringement or invasion of that right.
Headnote:
REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 22-A(1)(A) - URBAN LAND CEILING ACT, 1976 - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - LEGAL RIGHT - SUBSISTING INTEREST - DISCRETIONARY RELIEF - INFRINGEMENT OR INVASION OF RIGHT - PRIVATE PROPERTY - GOVERNMENT LAND - SURPLUS HOLDING - SUB-DIVISION - B.S.O. 58 - AGREEMENT HOLDER - ORIGINAL OWNER - REMEDY - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to register a sale deed for a property that was allegedly notified as government land under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act. The petitioner claimed that the property was not a government land and had been in possession of different persons since 1971. The respondents contended that the property was a surplus holding under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, and was notified as government land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner failed to prove that she had a subsisting or existing right in the property and that there was no infringement or invasion of her right. The court also held that the petitioner, being an agreement holder, was not entitled to claim any relief in the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had a legal right to compel the respondents to register the sale deed. 2. Whether the property was a government land notified under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act. 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ of mandamus is a discretionary relief and can only be issued when the petitioner is able to prove a subsisting right or interest in the property and an infringement or invasion of that right. 2. The property in question was a surplus holding under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, and was notified as government land under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act. 3. The petitioner, being an agreement holder, did not have a subsisting or existing right in the property and was not entitled to a writ of mandamus.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Nos.4 and 5 in not registering the sale deed with respect to 18.66 sq yards site and RCC roof building bearing No.53-33-9/B Assessment No. 41368/B 1st floor, (30x15.5) 465 Sq.ft property only, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to receive and registered the document.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, originally house site admeasuring 56 sq.yds belong to one V. Maraiah. The said land was zeroythi land in Patta No.240, Sy.No.6. The said land was purchased by K. Rami Naidu, his brothers and sons in the year 1971. K. Rami Naidu and his brothers sold the property to one Gujju Papamma under registered sale deed bearing Document No.647/1975 dated 22.01.1975 registered in the office of Joint SubRegistrar, Visakhapatnam. Gujju Papamma partitioned the land between her sons Gujju Nageswara Reddy and Gujju Ramana Murthy under registered partition deed bearing Document No.4558 of 2004 dated 19.10.2004.
3. Since then, sons of Gujju Papamma are enjoying their respective shares in the land. Subsequently, Gujju Ramana Murthy sold his share of house under registered sale deed bearing Document No.4334/2011 dated 11.08.2011 to one Philips Amantha Venkata Satya Surya Bhavani (for brevity ‘Amantha Bhavani’). Since the date of purchase, Amantha Bhavani was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by paying property tax to the Municipal Corporation and electricity consumption charges to APEPDCL.
4. Amantha Bhavani intended to sell the said property to the petitioner/Vimala Adilakshmi and entered into agreement of sale on 21.12.2020. The Sub/Joint Registrar, Visakhapatnam raised an objection for registering the sale deed in favour of the petitioner stating that land in Sy.No.6/2A Part situated at K.R.M. Colony,
5. Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam, is a land surrendered in the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings vested on the Government, thereby it is a Government land notified under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, as such it is not possible to register the sale deed. It is the contention that the said property is not a government land and since 1975, from generations to generations, the property was in possession and enjoyment of different persons; partition deed and sale deeds were registered by the Sub-Registrar, Visakhapatnam, now the Sub/Joint Registrar, Visakhapatnam raised an objection to register the sale deed on the ground that, the said Sy.No.6/2A part situated at K.R.M. Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhaptnam, is a land surrendered in the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings, vested on the Government, thereby it is a Government land notified under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, as such it is not possible to registered the sale deed.
6. Further, it is contended that, the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, do not attract the case of the petitioner. The land along with house has undergone several transactions since 1971 before commencement of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. The land is purely private land and there are number of registered sale deeds.
7. Originally the house was constructed prior to 1971; and the petitioner paid amount under agreement of sale to Mrs. Amantha Bhavani and the Sub-Registrar/fifth respondent is refusing to register the property, on the ground that the land falls within the urban land ceiling surplus land and the action of the respondents in treating the land admeasuring 18-66 sq.yds covered by building D.No.53-33-9/B, Assessment No.41368/B, 1st floor (30x15.5) 465 sq.ft property, as illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue writ of mandamus, as claimed by the petitioner.
8. Respondent No.3/Tahsildar, Seetammadhara Mandal, Visakhapatnam, denied material allegations, inter alia, contending that, the land is situated in Sy.No.6/3 part of Maddilapalem Village of Seethammadhara Mandal of Visakhapatnam District. As per the
