ORAL JUDGMENT

Date: 19.11.2021 (Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)

Heard Mr. G. L. Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader, Registration and Stamps for the appellants and Mr. Ch. Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 10.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.16653 of 2021 (Perala Kamalamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others) by which the writ petition has been disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.1700 of 2020 dated 13.02.2020. The respondent had moved the Court in W.P.No.16653 of 2021 being aggrieved by the property of which she was the owner being included in the prohibited properties list under Clause (a) to (e) of Section 22-A(I) of the Registration Act, 1908. The writ petition came to be disposed of by the impugned judgment and order primarily on the concession of the learned Government Pleader, Revenue, agreeing with the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondents that the issue involved was squarely covered by order of the Court in W.P.No.1700 of 2020 dated 13.02.2020 without reference to the impugned proceeding therein.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that such concession was not proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case for the reason that the respondent had moved the Court against her property being put in the prohibited list in terms of Roc.A/291/2012 dated 24.03.2012 issued by the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. Learned counsel submitted that subsequent thereto, by Roc.F7/4495/2013, dated 20.10.2018, the District Collector, Chittoor had again undertaken an exercise in terms of the Full Court Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and list with regard to the prohibited properties was prepared and the property in question is included in such list. Thus, it was contended that the respondent had not challenged the subsequent revised prohibited list and what was challenged was the list which already stood superseded subsequently by the aforesaid Roc.F7/4495/2013, dated 20.10.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent was never aware of the subsequent revised prohibited list dated 20.10.2018 as she had received only copy of Roc.A/291/2012 dated 24.03.2012 which she had duly challenged in the writ proceeding. Moreover, it was submitted that the learned Government Pleader before the Court had not disputed that the matter was covered by a decision of the Court in W.P.No.1700 of 2020 dated 13.02.2020.

5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that there was bona fide error on the part of the learned Government Pleader, Revenue, in taking the stand that the issue involved was fully covered by the order of the Court in W.P.No.1700 of 2020 dated 13.02.2020. Since the challenge itself was to a notification which was not in existence having stood superseded by the subsequent Roc.F7/4495/2013, dated 20.10.2018, that is, much prior to filing of the writ petition, the fact whether the property in question is rightly included in the prohibited list or not has to be tested with reference to the list contained in Roc.F7/4495/2013, dated 20.10.2018 and the same would be required to be modified or interfered with in accordance with law with regard to the property in question. Admittedly the same has not been done.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 10.08.2021 in W.P.No.16653 of 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge. However, the respondent is at liberty to assail Roc.F7/4495/2013, dated 20.10.2018 with regard to inclusion of the property in question in the prohibited list.

No costs.

7. The Court would observe that it has not expressed any opinion on merits whether the property in question has been rightly included in the prohibited list or not.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending also stand disposed of.

_______________________