ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…Issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent No. 2 in giving necessary orders to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein for deletion of the plot belonging to the petitioner bearing No. 1 admeasuring 222.2 Sq. Yards in Sy. No. 33/2B situated at Bakkanapalem village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District from the list of prohibited lands duly incorporating the said changes in the revenue records inspite of the representation dated 27.08.2016 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent authorities to delete the above said plot from the list of Government Land duly incorporation the same in the revenue records.”

2. The case of petitioner is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of plot bearing No.1 admeasuring an extent of 222.2 Sq. Yards in Sy. No.33/2b situated at Bakkannapalem village, Visakhapatham Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam having purchased the same from its lawful owner under registered sale deed document bearing No. 13/1993, dated 08.01.1993 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Madhurawada. The petitioner submitted an application before the 5th respondent, duly enclosing all relevant documents and expressed her readiness to pay the requisite charges and on that the officials of the 4th respondent herein informed to pay Rs.14,045/- by way of demand draft. Later, the 5th respondent after careful scrutiny and examination with reference to A.P. Regulation of Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2007, found to be in order and accordingly, the subject plots were regularised under the said rules on payment of pro-rata open space charges under the Rules and issued orders in proceedings No.2378/08/LS, dated 22-12-2011.

3. Later, the petitioner came to know that the 4th respondent herein notified the plot No.1 in Sy. No. 33/2B i.e., land situated in Bakkannapalem village, in the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

4. The petitioner made a written representation 27-08-2016 to the 2nd respondent reiterating the above facts and requested to give necessary instructions to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to verify the records and rectify the mistake crept in the prohibitory properties list and delete the same from the prohibitory properties list. But, no action is taken till date on the representation dated 27.08.2016.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sanisetti Venkateswarlu and Sri V. Suryakiran for respondent No.5, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

6. During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Sanisetti Venkateswarlu contended that an order was passed regularising the layout for the plot No.1 i.e., the subject property by the order in Rc. No. 2378/08/LS, dated 22.12.2011, the petitioner became the lawful owner and inclusion of the subject property under prohibited property list under Section 22-A is an illegality committed by the District Collector, Visakhaptnam District.

7. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue/Stamps and Registration supported the action of the 2nd respondent in inclusion of the subject property in prohibitory property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Whereas, V.Suryakiran, learned counsel for the 5th respondent ready to act upon the directions, if any, issued by the 2nd respondent or by this Court.

8. It is an undisputed fact that a layout was laid without any prior approval by the Government. But, the petitioner purchased the subject property bearing plot No.1, admeasuring 222.2 Sq. Yards, in Sy. No.33/2B situated in Bakkannapalem village, Visakhapatnam District. Since, Rules permit for regularisation of such layout, the petitioner made an application for regularisation of layout to the extent of the plot and paid Rs. 14,045/