The Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to delete property from the Prohibited Properties List as per Section 22A of the Registration Act.

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri K.V.Raghuveer, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner through Video Conference and Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the Respondents.

2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Endorsement passed by the Tahsildar of Kurnool Urban Mandal (Respondent No.3) dated 10.09.2024 (Ex.P22). Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Representation submitted to the District Collector dated 19.08.2024 (Ex.P20). He would submit that the District Collector is the Competent Authority to consider the request from any citizen to delete the concerned property from the Prohibited Properties List under Section 22A of the Registration Act . He would therefore submit that while such power is reserved to the District Collector, the Tahsildar of Kurnool Urban Mandal ought not to have issued the Endorsement dated 10.09.2024 (Ex.P22). He would submit that the Impugned Endorsement dated 10.09.2024 (Ex.P22) is vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Tahsildar to pass such an Order.

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is in agreement with the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction in entertaining any Application or any request for deletion of citizen’s property from the Prohibited Properties List under Section 22A of the Registration Act . In this view of the matter, the Impugned Endorsement dated 10.09.2024 (Ex.P22) is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Consequently, the District Collector, Kurnool District (Respondent No.2) is now directed to consider the Representation/Application submitted by the Writ Petitioner dated 19.08.2024 (Ex.P20) and pass a Speaking Order in accordance with law within a period of 14 weeks from today and communicate a copy of such Order to the Writ Petitioner forthwith.

4. Needless to state that the Respondent No.2 is statutorily obligated to adhere to the principles of Natural Justice by issuing advance Notice to all the interested parties including the Writ Petitioner, consider their submissions/objections and documents, if any, before passing the final order.

5. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands Allowed. No order as to costs.

6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

_________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 31.01.2025 UPS

08 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No:2283 of 2025

31.01.2025 UPS