IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
M/s. Indus Gene Expressions Limited, Rep. By its authorized signatory, Rachamalla Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o R. Siva Shankar Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration & Stamps) Department and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.5395 Of 2024
Decided On : 01-05-2024
(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 22-A(1)(a), 71, 72, and 77 - The writ petition seeks to challenge the refusal of registration of a sale deed on grounds of the property being assigned land. The petitioner contends that the land has since been made freehold, thus lifting the prohibition on registration. The court emphasizes the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction, particularly in light of the delay in filing the petition. The court ultimately dismisses the writ petition but allows the petitioner to present a fresh document for registration. (Paras 1, 7, 52)
(B) Delay and Laches - The court reiterates that delay in approaching the court without satisfactory explanation can lead to dismissal of the writ petition, as it may prejudice the opposite party. (Paras 17, 18, 19)
(C) Prohibition on Registration - The court notes that the Registration Act prohibits registration of documents relating to assigned lands, and such prohibition was in effect until the amendment in 2023. (Paras 24, 25, 26)
ORDER :
(Subba Reddy Satti, J.)
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
2. The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that petitioner’s vendors namely Vaddi Venkata Ramudu, Vaddi Adhi Lakshmamma and Vaddi Saraswathi are the absolute owners of the land of an extent of Ac.0-95 cents in survey No.178/2 situated at Koduru Village and Panchayat, Chilamathur Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. Names of the vendors of Petitioner’s were mutated in all the revenue records. After verifying the ownership of the vendors, petitioner purchased property for a valuable consideration and accordingly sale deed dated 30.08.2016 was executed and possession of the property was delivered to the petitioner. When the document was presented for registration before respondent No.5, it was assigned P.No.232 of 2016 and the same was kept pending. Subsequently, respondent No.5, by endorsement dated 09.09.2016, refused registration of the document, on the ground that “the scheduled property is a assigned land as per list communicated by Tahsildar, Chilamathur on Under Section 22-A(1)(a) of Registration Act, 1908”. b) The deponent could not take further steps since he has no knowledge about further legal process. After the amendment of The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘POT Act’), vide Act 35 of 2023, petitioner approached respondent No.5, registering authority, who informed that since document is refused, it cannot be processed, unless the endorsement is set aside. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The instructions of respondent No.5 furnished vide letter No.4/2021 dated 23.03.2024 are placed on record. It is stated that against refusal order, an appeal would lie to the District Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act. The free hold orders issued by the revenue authorities in respect of survey No.178/2 of Koduru Village, are not communicated to the Sub-Registrar, Chilamathur Mandal. The property is still in the list of prohibited properties.
4. Heard Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dilip Nayak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue/Stamps and Registration for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land of an extent of Ac.0-95 cents in survey No.178/2 in Koduru Village, purchased by the petitioner was included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A (1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Registration Act) and subsequently the said property was made free hold in the year, 2023. He would submit that Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the Assigned Lands Act was amended by Act 35 of 2023 by adding Section 2(i). He would submit that the land purchased by the petitioner is not shown as free-hold in adangal/pahani dated 13.02.2024 and in the column ‘nature of land cist’, it was mentioned as ‘the assigned land made freehold in the year 2023. He would submit that since the land is now made freehold there is no restriction to register the document, dated 30.08.2016, presented by the parties
Land Acquisition Officer Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division vs. Mekala Pandu
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v. T.T.Murali Babu
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable if effective statutory remedies are available and not pursued, especially in cases of delay.
The doctrine of res judicata applies to writ petitions, preventing re-litigation of issues already decided, thereby ensuring finality in judicial decisions.
A Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration of a deed based on questions of title or procedural delays in payment of stamp duty, as these are outside their jurisdiction.
Registering authorities must register documents presented if procedural requirements are satisfied, regardless of ownership disputes, ensuring compliance with the Registration Act and securing justic....
A petitioner must comply with statutory requirements for document registration, and failure to provide evidence of proper presentation can lead to dismissal of the writ petition.
Prohibition for assignment of these lands under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 is not attracted to the said land since the alienations were made by the ex-servicemen more....
Assigned lands lose their status when sold in execution proceedings, allowing for registration without objection.
The Registering Authority cannot refuse to register a sale deed based on title disputes; procedural compliance is sufficient for registration under the Registration Act.
The Sub-Registrar must register documents presented for registration unless legally prohibited, following the Registration Act's provisions.
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,....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.