1. Petitioner challenged inclusion of land in prohibited list under Section 22A(1)(c) of Registration Act, claiming ownership via registered sale deeds since 2003. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 7 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D. RAMESH, J.
C Venkata Jyothi W/o. Damodara Reddy - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6835 Of 2023
Decided On : 24-12-2025
(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 22A(1)(c) - Prohibition of Registration of Certain Documents - Prohibited list - Inclusion of property in prohibited list under Section 22A(1)(c) requires that the property is owned by Religious and Charitable Endowments and that the document relates to transfer by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding ten years, executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered - Mere entries in revenue records (RSR, ROR, Adangal) do not constitute proof of ownership for the purpose of Section 22A(1)(c), especially when there is a long chain of registered sale deeds and court auction proceedings. (Paras 23, 24, 27, 31)
(B) Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Sections 43 and 45 - Register under Section 43 - Presumption of genuineness under Section 43(3) - Remedy under Section 45 - Inclusion of property in the Section 43 register is not per se proof of ownership against a bonafide purchaser holding under a chain of registered deeds and court auction, and such inclusion, done after the filing of contempt proceedings, can be viewed as an attempt to circumvent court orders. (Paras 17, 21, 28, 29)
(C) Evidence Act, 1872 / Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Section 110/113 - Possession as prima facie proof of ownership - Burden of proof - A person in possession of property for a long period, claiming through a chain of registered sale deeds and court auction, is entitled to a presumption of ownership, and the burden shifts to the party (including the State or a religious endowment) denying such ownership to prove a better title. (Paras 26, 27, 84, 85 of cited judgment in Yerikala Sunkalamma)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased land in Sy.No.608/2, admeasuring Ac.6.00 cents, through registered sale deeds in 2003. The petitioner's predecessors-in-title had purchased the land in a court auction in 1880, following a decree in O.S.No.8 of 1877, and subsequent registered transactions occurred in 1889, 1904, 1907, 1961, and 1982. In 1957, the respondent temple filed an application under Section 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act seeking a certificate that the land belonged to it, but the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the application, directing the temple to approach the civil court. The temple did not pursue the matter. The petitioner's land was included in the prohibited list under Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration Act based on a memo from the Commissioner of Endowments and revenue records showing the land in the name of the temple. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the inclusion and the memo, which was later amended to also challenge the rejection of her representation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was a bonafide purchaser based on a long chain of registered sale deeds starting from a court auction in 1880, and her possession was not in dispute. The respondent temple failed to establish its title, as its earlier application for a certificate was dismissed, and it did not pursue the matter in a civil court. The revenue entries relied upon by the respondents were held not to be conclusive proof of title, and could not override the registered documents in favor of the petitioner. The court also noted that the inclusion of the property in the Section 43 register was done after the filing of contempt proceedings, indicating an attempt to circumvent court orders. The impugned memo was set aside.
Issues: The main issues were whether the respondents justifiably included the petitioner's land in the prohibited list under Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration Act based on revenue entries and a memo, and whether the petitioner, as a bonafide purchaser with a long chain of registered documents and possession, had a better title than the temple.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inclusion of property in the prohibited list under Section 22A(1)(c) must be based on proof of ownership by the Religious or Charitable Endowment, and not merely on revenue entries. Where a person holds property under a chain of registered sale deeds originating from a court auction and has been in long, uninterrupted possession, there is a presumption of title in their favor, and the burden shifts to the party claiming ownership (including a temple) to prove a better title, which the respondents failed to do. The court also held that entries in the Section 43 register, especially those made after the filing of contempt proceedings, do not establish ownership against such a bonafide purchaser.
Result: Writ Petition allowed. The impugned memo dated 16.04.2021 is set aside, and the respondents are directed to delete the subject properties from the Section 22A(1)(c) Register. No costs. Pending interlocutory applications are closed. (Paras 32, 33)
1. Petitioner challenged inclusion of land in prohibited list under Section 22A(1)(c) of Registration Act, claiming ownership via registered sale deeds since 2003. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 7 )
2. Petitioner argued bona fide purchase and title; respondents relied on revenue entries and Section 43 register claiming temple ownership. (Para 13 , 20 )
3. Writ petition allowed; impugned memo set aside; respondents directed to delete land from prohibited list under Section 22A(1)(c). (Para 32 , 33 )
No, revenue entries are not evidence of title; they only raise a presumption of possession and cannot override registered documents. (Para 24 , 27 )
Revenue records are relevant under Section 35 of Evidence Act but are not proof of title; they cannot form the sole basis for declaration of ownership. (Para 24 , 25 , 27 )
Yes, under Section 113 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, possession is prima facie proof of ownership; burden shifts to the party denying title. (Para 26 , 27 )
No, inclusion without proper rights declared by any competent court is invalid; mere revenue entries or administrative letters are insufficient. (Para 19 , 31 )
ORDER:
D. RAMESH, J.
The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the respondents in including the land in Sy.No.608/2 admeasuring an extent of Ac.6-00 cents of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District in the prohibited list and the memo issued by the 2nd respondent in Memo RC.No.M1/COE- 19025(35)/21/2019 dated 16.04.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration Act and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to delete the land in Sy.No.608/2 admeasuring an extent of Ac.6-00 cents of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District from the prohibited list and pass….”
2. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for Endowments of Rayalaseema Region and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.
3. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is pertaining to a piece of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.00cents in Sy.No.608/2 of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. The said land was purchased by the petitioner by way of a registered sale deed bearing document nos.5023 to 5028/2003 on 08.12.2003. Ever since from the date of purchase, the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the said property.
4. Initially one Labba Shaik Ahmed mortgaged the property in favour of Narayana Kistappa and others in respect of the land in Sy.No.608 of Kalluru Village. When the mortgagee failed to pay the amount, the mortgager filed a suit on the file of the District Court vide O.S.No.8 of 1877 and the said suit was decreed on 25.01.1878. For realization of the decree, the decree holders filed Execution Petition and in pursuance of the execution proceedings, the property was sold by way of public auction on 14.05.1880. One Ulachala Bala Yellaiah has participated in the said auction and purchased the land in Sy.No.608 admeasuring an extent of Ac.22.99 cents and an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.572, an extent of Ac.9.93 cents in Sy.No.743, an extent of Ac.4.62 cents in Sy.No.678 and an extent of Ac.21.50 cents in Sy.No.715 of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District through registered sale deed No.26/1880. Subsequently, number of sale transactions were taken place, those are in the years 1889, 1904, 1907, 1961 and 1982 and finally the petitioner has purchased in the year 2003 through registered sale deeds.
5. In fact, in the year 1957, the trustee of Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple, Kurnool filed an application u/Sec.87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for issuance of certificate that the properties mentioned in the schedule appended to the petition schedule belong to Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple, Kurnool Town. Reply to the said application, the predecessors in title of the petitioner filed their counter stating that the land in Sy.No.608 was called as Mondivani Chenu and prior to 1874 it was in possession and enjoyment of one Labbe Shaik Ahmed and the property was brought to sale in the Court auction held in execution of the decree passed in O.S.No.8 of 1877 and the transaction was taken place in the year 1880. The Deputy Commissioner, after considering the entire record, passed an order on 26.7.1957 holding that the respondents therein i.e. predecessors of the petitioner’s claim their title on the basis of sale certificate issued by the Court and it cannot be said that their claim is not bonafide, and accordingly directed the temple to agitate the matter in civil Court and dismissed the application. But for the reasons best known the respondent temple has not initiated any proceedings before the civil Court seeking declaration of title.
6. Subsequently, the predecessors of the title of the petitioner have partitioned their properties by mean
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top