Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
D. Ramesh, J.
G. V. V. Satyanarayana – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 13329 of 2021
Decided On : 22-07-2022
REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - SECTION 22-A - DELETION OF LAND FROM PROHIBITED LIST - REVIEW OF ORDERS - JURISDICTION - EX-SERVICEMAN - LANDLESS POOR CATEGORY - WRIT PETITION - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's father, an Ex-serviceman, was allotted land in 1970. The land was later included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Petitioner applied for deletion of the land from the prohibited list, which was granted by the government in 2018. However, the District Collector requested a review of the order, which was rejected by the government. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to delete the land from the prohibited list and to register the sale transactions of the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the government had no power to entertain the review application as there was no provision for review under the Act. The court also held that the respondents were estopped from taking the plea that the patta was granted under the landless poor category as the government had already passed an order deleting the land from the prohibited list. The court further held that the respondents were not entitled to entertain or conduct further enquiry in the subject.
Issues: 1. Whether the government had the jurisdiction to entertain the review application. 2. Whether the respondents were estopped from taking the plea that the patta was granted under the landless poor category. 3. Whether the respondents were entitled to entertain or conduct further enquiry in the subject.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the government had no power to entertain the review application as there was no provision for review under the Act. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Kala Bharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Others, which held that a review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders unless the statute/rules so permit. 2. The court held that the respondents were estopped from taking the plea that the patta was granted under the landless poor category as the government had already passed an order deleting the land from the prohibited list. The court held that the respondents were bound by the government's order and could not go back on it. 3. The court held that the respondents were not entitled to entertain or conduct further enquiry in the subject as the government's order was final and binding.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to delete the subject property from the list under Section 22-A(1) of the Act forthwith and to receive and register the documents submitted by the petitioner, for registration as per the provisions of the Act. The court also imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/- each on the respondents 1 to 4, which shall be payable from their own funds, to the credit of A.P. High Court Legal Services Authority, Amaravathi.
JUDGMENT
D. Ramesh, J. - This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in not entertaining registrations over the petitioner's property on the ground that the lands are in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act, 1908 despite the 1st respondent ordered to delete the petitioner's property from prohibited list vide Memo No. REV/21021/92/2017-ASSG.II-1 dated 1.5.2018 is illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction; consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to give effect to the orders passed by the 1st respondent and to register the sale transactions of the petitioner in respect of the subject land admeasuring Ac. 4.93 cents in Sy. No. 134/1, Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue as well as the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration.
3. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the father of petitioner late Sri Thammi Raju was an Ex-Serviceman and he was assigned an extent of Ac. 4.93 cents in Sy. No. 134/1 of Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam vide D.R. file bearing No. 116/71 dated 23.06.1970. After demise of his father the petitioner, being inherited the said property, is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property without any interruption from any corner.
4. When it came to the notice of the petitioner that said property was enlisted under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, he submitted a representation to the government on 13.02.2015 for deletion of the property from the prohibited properties list. Accordingly, the 1st respondent has considered the representation, after thorough enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner, passed orders vide memo No. REV/21021/92/2017-ASSG.II-1 dated 01.05.2018 and held that the petitioner's father is an ex-serviceman and the subject land was assigned to the father of the petitioner. Accordingly the subject land was deleted from the list of prohibitory properties notified under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 [for short referred as 'the Act'].
5. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent i.e., the District Collector, Visakhapatnam has approached the 1st respondent and requested to review the orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 01.05.2018. However, the 1st respondent has declined to review the orders and dismissed the review application of the 2nd respondent, vide orders in Memo No. REV/21021/92/2017-ASSG.II-1 dated 31.10.2018. Since the authorities have not inclined to remove the said lands from the list under Section 22-A(1) of the Act, the petitioner represented again before the 1st respondent, based on the same the 1st respondent has issued a memo on 12.12.2018 directing the 4th respondent to implement the orders dated 01.05.2018 for deletion of subject land from the list of prohibited properties.
6. Subsequently, when the petitioner approached the office of the 3rd respondent for the purpose of registration of sale transaction as to the said property, the office of the 3rd and 4th respondents refused to entertain the registration, stating that the land of the petitioner's is still being shown in the list of prohibited properties in their records, therefore, they cannot entertain the registration. Though the proceedings of the 1st respondent was brought to the notice of the 3rd respondent, office of the 3rd respondent stated that until and unless they receive orders of the District Collector, they cannot delete the lands from the prohibitory properties list.
7. Contention of the writ petitioner is that the 3rd respondent being the statutory authority under the provisions of the Registration Act 1908, even after receipt of the communication from the higher authorities in respect of the Government lands, keeping the subject property in the prohibitory list under section 22-A of the Act, is contrary to the provisions of the Act and
The government does not have the power to entertain a review application unless there is a provision for review under the statute.
Point of Law : The Doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be gran....
The court ruled that land cannot be classified as prohibited under Section 22-A without proper Gazette notification, allowing registration of sale deeds.
The doctrine of res judicata applies to writ petitions, preventing re-litigation of issues already decided, thereby ensuring finality in judicial decisions.
A purchaser under an unregistered sale deed does not acquire any right or interest in the immovable property.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal for registration of properties based on defective notifications under Section 22-A of the Registration Act was illegal, arbitrary,....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for compliance with court directions and the right to be heard before passing orders.
The State Government does not have the power to review its own orders unless such power is specifically conferred by statute. The State Government cannot exercise its power of review after a long del....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
