SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
P. Srinivasulu and others —Petitioners
versus
Sub-Registrar, Renigunta
and Others —Respondents
W.P. No. 21836 of 2012
Decided on 07.09.2012

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:S. Niranjan Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Government Pleader and V.T.M. Prasad, Advocate.

Headnote:Registration Act, 1908-Section 22-A —Prohibition of Registration of certain documents.—Writ petition seeking direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of respondent1 in not registering and releasing the document presented by pettioner 1 in relation to the land basing on the letters addressed by respondents 3 and 5 as illegal and arbitrary, and contrary to the provision of Act, 1908-The purpose and object of newly amended provision under section 22-A, into the Registration Act, is to prevent transfer of land belonging to Government and Religious Institutions- At the same time, whenever there is a bonafide claim with regard to title and possession by any third party, such claim cannot be curtailed merely on the ground that such land belonging to either Government or Religious Institutions- The complicated questions with regard to title and possession cannot be gone into by the respondents by preventing transfer of lands in exercise of the power under section 22-A of the Registration Act- When there is a bona fide claim by a private person in respect of immovable property of the Government or Religious Institution or any Local Body, covered by section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, it is for such Government. Religious Institution of Local Body to approach competent forum or Court to establish their right- But the claim of the bona fide purchaser cannot be deprived of, by preventing transfer of lands making communications to the Registering Authorities- Sale-deeds were executed as early as in 1981, 1983 and 1985 and since last 31 years the father of petitioner1 and after his death petitioner1 were in continuous possession of the subject land- At this point of time, respondents could not create any cloud on the title of petitioner1 either by disputing the validity of the resolution authorizing the Life Trustee to execution of sale-deeds or on the ground that such sales were effected without prior approval of the Commissioner of Endowments—Writ petition allowed. (Paras 16 to 18)

       Result: Petition allowed

       

JUDGMENT

R. Subhash Reddy, J.—This writ petition is filed seeking direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in not registering and releasing the document presented by the first pettioner in relation to the land admeasuring Acs. 11.95 cents in Survey No. 6 of Tukiwakam Village of Renigunta Mandal in Chittoor District basing on the letters in Rc. No. KGT-31/2007, dated 26.12.2007, Rc. NoN1/34576/2007, dated 11.12.2008 and Rc. No. N1/27520/2009 dated 19.4.2010 addressed by the respondents 3 and 5 as illegal and arbitrary, and contrary to the provision of the Registration Act, 1908.

2. The case of the petitioner is as under:

Sri Kandala Govindacharyula Trust, Gopalapuram Matam, Chinna Bazar Street, Tirupati (hereafter, the Trust) is purely a private trust. It was endowed with the land admeasuring Acs. 29.85 cents in Survey No. 6 situated at Tukiwakam Village of Renigunta Mandal in Chittoor District (hereafter, the Trust land). The trustees of the Trust passed a resolution dated 30.6.1981 authorising Sri Kandala Vijaya Raghavan (hereafter, the Life Trustee) to execute sale-deeds in respect of the Trust land in favour of various persons. Sri Konneti Natarajan Mudaliar, who is the father of the first petitioner, purchased an extent of Acs. 11.95 cents covered by Survey No. 6 situated at Tukiwakam Village of Renigunta Mandal in Chittoor District (hereafter. the subject land) forming part of the Trust land, by separate registered sale-deeds. He purchased an extent of Acs. 10.00 through registered document bearing No. 7677 of 1981, dated 29.12.1981; an extent of Acs. 1.20 cents through registered document bearing No. 1138 of 1983, dated 21.2.1983; and an extent of Acs.0.75 cents through registered document No. 3993 of 1985, dated 21.6.1985. Sri Mudaliar had become absolute owner and possessor of the subject land. It is stated that after demise of his father on 2.7.1997, the first petitioner is in continuous and uninterrupted possession and also perfected his title to the subject land. The Trust land, excluding the subject land, was sold to third parties and the said lands were divided into house plots. About hundred houses have come in that area and it has now become a residential colony.

3. Precisely, it is the case of the petitioners that the entire Trust land covered by Survey No.6 had been sold to Sri Natarajan Mudaliar and others.

4. After death of his father on 2.7.1997, the first petitioner offered to sell the land to petitioners 2 to 5 and they have entered into agreements of sale dated 10.3.2010, 24.2.2011 and 25.1.2012. The petitioners 2 to 5 have paid substantial amounts to the first petitioner towards part consideration. When they have approached the first respondent-Sub-Registrar, Renigunta for registration of regular sale-deeds, he informed them that the subject land is shown in the list of properties prohibited for registration, in view of the letter Rc. No. KGT-3/2007, dated 26.12.2007 addressed by the fifth respondent to the first respondent.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the Trust was originally registered on 9.7.1898 vide document No. 851 of 1898 and it was brought under section 6 (c) (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereafter, the Act 30 of 1987) on 13.4.1995 and the Trust was handed over to the Endowments ‘Department on 9.12.1996. An Executive Officer was appointed to represent the Trust and in such representative capacity he has addressed letter dated 26.12.2007 to the first respondent not to allow any transaction in respect of the lands covered by Survey No.6 i.e. the Trust land. The petitioners contend that there is no valid reason for inclusion of subject land in the list of properties prohibited for registration as the father of the first petitioner purchased the subject land through registered sale-deeds in 1981, 1983 and 1985. The remaining lands in Survey No.6 were sold to the third parties. There was

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top