The court affirmed the validity of a ryotwari patta and mandated a factual inquiry into land classification, emphasizing that registration cannot be denied while the patta is in force.

JUDGMENT :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

As all the two Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition relate to the same facts and the same subject matter, they are being disposed of, by way of a common order.

2. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. S. Anvesha, appearing for respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.455 of 2019 and 154 of 2020, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.7194 of 2024 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the appellants in W.A.No.154 of 2020 and 455 of 2019 and for respondents in W.P.No.7194 of 2024.

3. The 1^st respondent is said to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0.31 cents in Sy.No.279/1, Ac.0.12 cents in Sy.No.288/1, Ac.0.17 cents in Sy.No.292/1, Ac.0.26 cents in Sy.No.296/1, Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.304/1, Ac.0.12 cents in Sy.No.305/1, Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.306/1, Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.307/4, and Ac.0.17 cents in Sy.No.309/1, aggregating to Acs.1.54 cents. This land was originally the property of Sri Hathiramji Mutt. This Mutt is said to have granted a permanent patta in favour of the vendor of the 1^st respondent, on 25.03.1939. Subsequently, the vendor of the 1^st respondent sought ryotwari patta, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri issued proceedings in I.E.No.303/77, dated 20.12.1980, granting ryotwari patta to the vendor of the 1^st respondent for the extent of Ac.1.54 cents and another extent of Ac.0.16 cents. After the grant of the said ryotwari patta, the vendor of the 1^st respondent sold it to the 1^st respondent under a registered deed of sale, dated19.12.1981, registered as Document No.7376/1981.

4. The 1^st respondent sought to execute a deed of settlement, in favour of her son, on 01.09.2017 and approached the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, for a market value certificate for the purpose of paying stamp duty on the document. However, the Sub-Registrar issued an endorsement, on 01.09.2017 itself, that the said land is classified as „Government land‟ and no document can be presented for registration purpose. On verification, the 1^st respondent came to know that the property is not included in the list of prohibited properties, maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Aggrieved by the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register the settlement deed, the 1^st respondent had approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.30085 of 2017. This Writ Petition was dismissed, on 08.09.2017. However, liberty was given to 1^st respondent to submit an application to the District Collector for allowing the 1^st respondent to execute necessary settlement deed. The 1^st respondent, on the strength of the order of the High Court, dated 08.09.2007, had filed an application, on 23.09.2017, seeking a no objection certificate. As no orders were passed on this application, the 1^st respondent approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh again, by way of W.P.No.40979 of 2017, for a direction to the authorities to dispose the application of the 1^st respondent and for a direction to the Sub-Registrar to receive, process and register the gift settlement deed.

5. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, proceedings were issued by the District Collector, on 02.03.2018 rejecting the request of the 1^st respondent. The prayer in the Writ Petition was amended to include a challenge to the order of rejection and the matter was taken up for consideration by a learned single Judge of the erstwhile High Court.

6. The contention of the revenue authorities, before the learned Single Judge, was that the ryotwari patta, issued in favour of the vendor of the petitioner, could not have been given and all such ryotwari pattas had already been cancelled by the Com