Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 22A(1)(e) of the Registration Act - Prohibits registration of certain property transactions unless the property is notified by the government under this section. The section aims to restrict registration of properties deemed prohibited, such as government or assigned lands, unless a formal notification is issued. ["M/s. Vasundhara Constructions Private Limited vs The Sub-Registrar - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Smt. B.Sridevi Vs The State - Andhra Pradesh"], ["T G VENKATA KRISHNA vs THE STATE OF AP - Andhra Pradesh"]
Notification Requirement - The government must publish a notification after obtaining reasons and full descriptions of properties from district authorities for properties falling under Section 22A(1)(e). Without such notification, registration cannot be refused solely on the ground that the property is included in the prohibited list. The notification process is mandatory for enforcement. ["M/s. Vasundhara Constructions Private Limited vs The Sub-Registrar - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Smt. B.Sridevi Vs The State - Andhra Pradesh"], ["T G VENKATA KRISHNA vs THE STATE OF AP - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Kadiri Nagajyothi, Vs The State - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Shaik Shafiullah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"]
Legal Validity of Notifications - Several sources highlight that notifications issued under Section 22A(1)(e) must be properly issued and are subject to legal scrutiny. Unlawful or unnotified inclusion of properties in the prohibited list is considered illegal and arbitrary, and such notifications can be challenged in courts. ["M.Vijayabhaskar Raju vs The State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"], ["E.Mohan Rami Reddy Vs The State - Andhra Pradesh"], ["P Geetha vs Prl.Secy., Revenue dept - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Valluru Siva Prasad vs The District Registrar Registration Stamps Guntur - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Kadiri Nagajyothi, Vs The State - Andhra Pradesh"]
De-notification and Exemptions - Lands assigned prior to specific dates (e.g., before 1954 or 1942) can be considered for deletion from the prohibited list through government orders, such as G.O.Ms.No.575 or similar notifications. This process involves rectified reports and administrative actions to remove properties from the prohibited list, facilitating registration and transfer. ["Sri. Palagiri Konda Reddy Vs The State - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Shaik Shafiullah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Smt. B.Sridevi Vs The State - Andhra Pradesh"]
Impact on Property Registration and Transfer - The absence of proper notification under Section 22A(1)(e) prevents refusal of registration, and properties included unlawfully can be contested. Courts have emphasized that registration cannot be refused unless the property is duly notified under the section, and improper notifications are invalid. ["M.Vijayabhaskar Raju vs The State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"], ["E.Mohan Rami Reddy Vs The State - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Penupothula Prakash vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["STATE BANK OF INDIA VS Dr K V SRINIVAS - National Company Law Tribunal"]
Legal Challenges and Court Rulings - Courts have declared that exercising power under Section 22A(1)(e) without proper notification is illegal. In several cases, courts have directed authorities to initiate appropriate procedures, including notification or de-notification, before restricting registration. This ensures transparency and legality in the process. ["M.Vijayabhaskar Raju vs The State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"], ["E.Mohan Rami Reddy Vs The State - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Valluru Siva Prasad vs The District Registrar Registration Stamps Guntur - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Emmadi Somanarasaiah vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]
Special Cases and Exemptions - Lands assigned before certain dates or lands declared as Wakf or other categories may be exempted from prohibitory lists through specific orders or court judgments, facilitating registration and transfer. ["Sri. Palagiri Konda Reddy Vs The State - Andhra Pradesh"], ["T G VENKATA KRISHNA vs THE STATE OF AP - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Shaik Shafiullah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"]
Section 22A(1)(e) of the Registration Act empowers the government to prohibit registration of certain properties through notifications. However, the legality of such prohibitions hinges on proper, timely, and lawful notifications issued under the prescribed procedures. Unnotified inclusion of properties in the prohibited list is deemed illegal, and courts have consistently emphasized the necessity of following due process before restricting registration rights. Exemptions and de-notification processes are available for properties assigned prior to specific dates, ensuring that legitimate owners can register their transactions without undue hindrance. Overall, the section aims to regulate property registration while safeguarding procedural legality and property rights.
In property transactions, discovering that a registered document was obtained through fraud can be distressing for buyers, sellers, and stakeholders. What are the requirements for declaring a registered document was got executed by fraud? This question often arises in cases involving disputed titles, especially with government-involved lands in India. Under the Registration Act, 1908, particularly Section 22A(1)(e), challenging such documents requires specific legal thresholds, primarily centered on notifications and government interests. This post explores these requirements, drawing from key judgments and statutory provisions to guide you through the process.
While this information is based on established case law, it is general in nature and not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
Section 22A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908, prohibits the registration of documents relating to properties where the government has an avowed or accrued interest, but only if the property is explicitly notified under this provision. Without such a notification, restrictions do not apply automatically, even if government interest is claimed. This is crucial when alleging fraud in execution, as improper registration of prohibited properties can form the basis for fraud claims Avula Ratna Kumari VS State Of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 310.
The courts have clarified: Section 22A(1)(e) applies only to properties in which the Government has an avowed or accrued interest and that are notified under this provision Avula Ratna Kumari VS State Of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 310. Mere government claims without notification cannot bar registration or sustain fraud declarations post-registration.
A notification under Section 22A(2) is mandatory to enforce prohibitions. It must describe the property and declare the restriction. In T. Yedukondalu v. Principal Secretary to Government, the court emphasized: the existence of a notification under Section 22A(2) is essential to invoke the prohibition under Section 22A(1)(e) Nivasam Mutual Aided House Building Society Ltd. VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 671.
Without this, registering authorities cannot refuse documents based solely on alleged government interest, and post-registration fraud claims alleging violation of such restrictions may fail Vontela Surender Reddy VS State of Telangana - 2022 Supreme(Telangana) 160. For instance, one judgment noted: no notification was issued as required under Section - 22A (e) prohibiting the registration of documents Vontela Surender Reddy VS State of Telangana - 2022 Supreme(Telangana) 160.
Many fraud allegations stem from assigned lands—government-allotted to landless persons. When such lands are mortgaged to banks or cooperatives and sold in public auctions, they typically lose their 'assigned' status and become private property. Restrictions under Section 22A(1)(e) cease unless a fresh notification is issued E. Mohan Rami Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 992State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department VS Y. Prabhakar Naidu, S/o. Subbaiah - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 240.
Key court holdings include:- Sale in public auction extinguishes assigned status: sale of assigned land mortgaged to banks or cooperative societies, after which the land is transferred to private ownership, generally ceases to attract the restrictions of Section 22A(1)(e) E. Mohan Rami Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 992.- In Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti v. K. Guravaiah and State of A.P. v. P. Ushan Rani, courts ruled that auction sales change the land's character E. Mohan Rami Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 992M. Vijayabhaskar Raju VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 54.
Thus, a registered document from such a sale is generally valid, undermining fraud claims unless notification persists.
Absence of Section 22A(2) notification means restrictions are unenforceable. Courts observe: Without such a notification, the mere existence of government interest or claim does not automatically prevent registration Avula Ratna Kumari VS State Of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 310. This protects bona fide purchasers but requires vigilance.
Registering authorities must provide specific reasons for refusal under Section 71, as held: The Registering Authorities must provide specific reasons for refusal to register documents, and they are obligated to entertain and release documents Vontela Surender Reddy VS State of Telangana - 2022 Supreme(Telangana) 160. Failure to do so can lead to court directions for registration.
Properties on prohibited lists, like Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) under Section 22A(1)(b), require scrutiny. However, authorities like municipalities cannot adjudicate title disputes: A municipality does not have the power to enter into the disputed questions of title and possession and issue notices Dharani Kartikeya Builders VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2020 Supreme(AP) 710.
Challenging a registered document via review is limited. Under Section 17(1)(e) for compulsorily registrable documents: Review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for a review... The review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise Shaijan, S/o. Thottathil Parambil Kuttan VS Varghese, S/o. Ouseph - 2023 Supreme(Ker) 238. Fraud claims must show apparent errors, not alternative views.
Consider these scenarios where restrictions may revive:- Government resumption proceedings with fresh Section 22A(2) notification.- Explicitly notified properties, even post-sale.- Ongoing litigations linking to prohibited status (though tenuous links fail, as in Writ Petition No. 1216 of 2004Dharani Kartikeya Builders VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2020 Supreme(AP) 710).
To navigate fraud declarations:- Verify notifications: Check official gazettes or revenue records for Section 22A(2) lists before transactions.- Demand reasons on refusal: Insist on written grounds under Section 71 Vontela Surender Reddy VS State of Telangana - 2022 Supreme(Telangana) 160.- Auction buyers: Confirm status change post-sale; restrictions typically lift State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department VS Y. Prabhakar Naidu, S/o. Subbaiah - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 240.- Fraud claimants: Prove notification existence and fraud beyond mere government interest claims.
Authorities should issue timely notifications to avoid disputes Nivasam Mutual Aided House Building Society Ltd. VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 671.
Understanding these requirements empowers informed decisions in property dealings. For personalized guidance, seek expert legal counsel.
References:1. Avula Ratna Kumari VS State Of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 310: Interpretation of Section 22A(1)(e).2. Nivasam Mutual Aided House Building Society Ltd. VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 671: Need for 22A(2) notification.3. E. Mohan Rami Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 992: Auction sales and assigned land.4. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department VS Y. Prabhakar Naidu, S/o. Subbaiah - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 240: Exemption post-mortgage sale.5. Vontela Surender Reddy VS State of Telangana - 2022 Supreme(Telangana) 160: Refusal reasons under Section 71.6. Shaijan, S/o. Thottathil Parambil Kuttan VS Varghese, S/o. Ouseph - 2023 Supreme(Ker) 238: Review limitations.7. Dharani Kartikeya Builders VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2020 Supreme(AP) 710: Authority limits on title disputes.
#PropertyLaw #RegistrationAct #Section22A
22A(1)(e) of the Registration Act. ... 22A(1)(e) of the Registration Act. ... 22A(1)(e) of the Registration Act without de-notification of the survey numbers by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. ... 22A(#HL_STA....
Registration of document cannot be refused unless the property is notified under Section 22A of the Registration Act. Section 22-A of the Registration Act prohibits registration of certain documents. Relevant clause applicable to the present case is Section 22A (1) (e#HL....
Registration of document cannot be refused unless the property is notified under Section 22A of the Registration Act. Section 22-A of the Registration Act prohibits registration of certain documents. Relevant clause applicable to the present case is Section 22A (1) (e#HL....
22- A(1)(e) of Registration Act in terms of G.O.Ms.No.575, dated 16.11.2018, since the subject land was assigned in the year 1942. ... Dinne Mandal, YSR District, Erstwhile YSR Kadapa District from the prohibited properties list under Section 22A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 vide Annexure-V of C.K.Dinne Mandal of Kadapa, Y.S.R. ......
(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)
He ultimately recommended for deletion of subject land from the Annexure-V prohibitary list under Section 22A (e) of the Registration Act, as the same was assigned prior to 1954. ... and 2 in not de-notifying the property in an extent of Ac.1.16 cents of Kollayulu village from G.O.Ms.No.215 Revenue (Assign-I) Department dated 13.05.2016 and consequently not deleting the said property fro....
Respondent No.2 considered the same and issued a direction to the State to notify the same under Section 22A (1) (b) instead of notifying the property under Section 22A (1) (e) of the Registration Act, 1908. ... 22A (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 is illegal and....
Respondent No.2 considered the same and issued a direction to the State to notify the same under Section 22A (1) (b) instead of notifying the property under Section 22A (1) (e) of the Registration Act, 1908. ... 22A (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 is illegal and....
Respondent No.2 considered the same and issued a direction to the State to notify the same under Section 22A (1) (b) instead of notifying the property under Section 22A (1) (e) of the Registration Act, 1908. ... 22A (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 is illegal and....
Respondent No.2 considered the same and issued a direction to the State to notify the same under Section 22A (1) (b) instead of notifying the property under Section 22A (1) (e) of the Registration Act, 1908. ... 22A (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 is illegal and....
11. Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act reads,-
According to him, no notification was issued as required under Section - 22A (e) prohibition the registration of documents. As far as the note Endt.No.PC/3187/2018 dated 28.07.2018 is concerned, it was contended by Mr. Srinivasa Rao Putluri, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.11138 of 2021 that it was against Section - 22A of the Act, 1908. He placed reliance on the order dated 12.03.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. No.5156 of 2021.
At the same time, issue of direction by respondent No.2 to include the property under Section 22 A (1) (e) of the Registration Act without vesting the land on the Government divesting from alienee on resumption following the necessary procedure prescribed under the Act, does not arise. But in the present case, no resumption proceedings are initiated till date. Here, the petitioner made an application for deletion of property from the prohibitory list. Hence, notifying the property in....
Thereupon, the respondent/writ petitioner made an application to the concerned authorities on 09.10.2019 for deletion of the subject land from the prohibited property list and after conducting enquiry, favourable recommendations were made by the fifth and fourth respondents vide reports dated 18.12.2019 and 07.03.2020 respectively. Later on, the respondent/writ petitioner sought to sell the subject land in order to meet his medical expenses and approached the sixth respondent -Sub-Registrar, B....
He also points out that the land is situated in Sy. No. 12/4, and is included in the Section 22-A "prohibited list" of ULC properties. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to this document and points out that if the land in Sy. No. 12/4 is an "Urban Land Ceiling" property. The list of properties under Section 22A (1) (B) of the Registration Act is produced. Therefore, learned standing counsel submits that the respondents were rightly not satisfied with the title.
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
