ORDER:

The challenge in this writ petition is to the refusal of the 5th respondent to receive, register and release the documents presented by the petitioners on the ground that the subject lands of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.734-1, Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.734-1B, Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.734-1C and Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.734-1A of Utkur Village fields, Chintha Kommadinne Mandal, YSR District were included in the prohibitory properties list maintained under Section 22A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus in this regard to the respondents.

2. The petitioners’ case succinctly is thus:

(a) The subject lands were assigned in favour of (1) Mr. S.Vijaya Bhaskar, S/o. Chinna Subbaiah (2) S.Raja Sekar Rao, S/o. Subbaiah and (3) K.Sankaraiah, S/o. Subbaiah respectively. Thereafter the original assignees had availed loan by mortgaging the subject land with the District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., YSR Kadapa District for agricultural purpose and failed to repay the loan. Due to non-payment of loan, the subject land was auctioned by the District Co-operative Central Bank, Kadapa through E.P.No.461/2001-02, E.P.No.468/2001- 02, E.P.No.2678/2001-02 and E.P.No.2679/2001-02 dated 12.04.2002. In the said auction, one Kadiri Nagendra Prasad, the father-in-law of 1st petitioner, purchased the subject land in auction and obtained Sale Certificate in Form-10, dated 22.05.2002.

(b) Subsequently, when the said Kadiri Nagendra Prasad proposed to sell the subject land in favour of the petitioners, the 5th respondent herein refused to register the documents on the ground that subject lands were assigned lands and therefore, the said Kadiri Nagendra filed W.P.No.14264 of 2010 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to declare the action of 5th respondent in refusing to entertain the sale deeds for registration of the land as illegal and arbitrary, and also filed W.P.No.18818/2010 to declare the action of 5th respondent in refusing to entertain the sale deed for the land of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.734/1 of Utkur village fields, Chinthakommadinne Mandal, YSR District as arbitrary and illegal. Those writ petitions were allowed

1 basing on the decision in The Sub-Registrar v. K.Guravaiah vide orders dated 16.07.2010 and 06.08.2010 respectively with a direction to respondent No.5 to register the sale deeds for the subject lands.

(c) Thereafter, Kadiri Nagendra Prasad sold the subject lands in favour of the petitioners through Sale Deeds dated 02.11.2010 and 03.09.2012 registered as document Nos.4410/2010, 7892/2012, 7893/2012 and 7894/2012 respectively and since then the petitioners were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands.

1 2009 (3) ALT 85

(d)The further case of the petitioners is that when the petitioners intends to alienate the property and approached the 5th respondent, he refused to receive and register the document on the same ground that the land is included in the prohibitory properties list maintained under Section 22A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908 and that it was a dotted land.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would strenuously argue that in spite of the decision in K. Guravaiah’s case (supra 1), still the 5th respondent refused to receive and register the document which is illegal and amounts to contempt of court’s order.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue tried to defend the action of the respondents on the ground that since the property was included in the prohibitory properties list under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, the 5th respondent was right in rejecting the request of the petitioners.

6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow?

7. Point: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. The Sale Deeds dated 02.11.2010 and