IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.35041 of 2013 Between:
Arava Narayana Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, Age: 46 years, Agriculturist, Resident of H.No.5/7-1, Madhavaram-1, Siddavatam Mandal, YSR Cuddapah District & 3 others .. Petitioners AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Registration) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.35041 of 2013 ORDER:
The petitioners claim to be the owners of lands to an extent of Ac. 5.03 cents in Survey No.906/1, Ac. 5.00 cents in Survey No.906/2, Ac. 3.45 cents in Survey No.907/1 and Ac.
5.00 cents in Survey No.907/2 respectively of Peddapalle Village, Siddavatam Mandal, YSR Cuddapah District.
2. The case of the petitioners is that these lands were originally assigned to Sri Rayavaram Kondaiah, Sri Rayavaram Pala Kondaiah, Sri Rayavaram Subbanna and Sri Rayavaram Yellaiah. The assignees mortgaged the land with the State Bank of India and obtained loans. Since assignees did not pay the loans due to the bank, the bank proceeded against them and ultimately resulted in the Munsif Magistrate Court at Siddhout, conducting auction on 10.08.1984. Smt. Arava Venkata Laxmamma, Smt. Konga Subbamma, Sri Arava Narayana Reddy and Sri Konga Subba Reddy have purchased the above said lands in the Court auction. Accordingly, Sale Certificates were issued to them and the same were registered with the concerned registering authority. When those purchasers were not permitted to sell the lands, they appealed to the Government. The Government passed orders in Memo No.28798/Asn.IV(1)/92-2 and Memo No.28795/Asn.4(1)/92-2 Revenue (ASN.4), dated 28.05.1992, in respect of Rayavaram Pala Kondaiah, Rayavaram Subbanna and Rayavaram Kondaiah respectively permitting them to sell the lands. Petitioners 2 to 4 have purchased the lands from those persons and documents were also registered. The first petitioner, who purchased the land in the Court auction continues to hold the land. The petitioners intend to dispose of the properties which are in their possession and enjoyment and when the petitioners approached the Sub-Registrar, Siddavatam Mandal, YSR Cuddapah District (4th respondent), the Sub-Registrar returned the Deeds of Conveyance on the ground that in the list of prohibited properties furnished by the revenue authorities, these lands are classified as Government lands and, therefore, cannot be processed for alienation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners instituted this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the land was originally assigned, the assignees were entitled to mortgage the lands with the bank to obtain loans and in case the assignee does not pay the loan, the bank is entitled to sell the properties to recoup the amount of loan due. Accordingly, these properties were sold in the Court auction and the vendors of petitioners 2 to 4 have purchased the properties in the Court auction. Similarly, the first petitioner purchased the land in the Court auction. Consequent to the purchase of the lands by the vendors of petitioners 2 to 4 and the first petitioner, the purchasers have become the owners of the lands and all rights to enjoy the property as private land vests in them.
Therefore, the description of the land as Government land/assigned land and prohibiting alienation of the properties is ex facie illegal and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.
4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.950 of 2007, dated 30.12.2008.
5. On instructions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that in the R.S.R of the Village, the land is classified as ‘Assigned Waste’. However, the revenue authorities agree that in the Adangal copy, there is correct description of the present owners of the property and also admit of the possession and enjoyment of these persons. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that as per the revenue records, the land is classified as ‘Assigned Waste’ showing the dots in R.S.R and, therefore, the land is shown in the prohibitory list furnished by the Sub-Registrar.
6. These instructions obviously reflect the lack of seriousness in rectifying and updating the revenue records. The statement of the Tahsildar in his letter, dated 17.12.2013, addressed to the learned Government Pleader does not reflect the correct decision as per the records. It appears that the revenue authorities at the lower level refused to recognize the sale conducted by the Court and valid purchase made in open auction conducted and the consequence of such sale. Identical issue has fallen for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.950 of 2007.
“19. Let us consider the provisions of Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act in the light of the facts of the present case. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, it was open to the original assignees of the land to mortgage the land to the bank by virtue of the definition of Section 2 (1). If the mortgage in favour of the bank was not alienation, there was no restriction with regard to mortgaging the assigned land in favour of the bank. Thus, the mortgage was valid. As the mortgage money was not repaid to the bank, the bank sold the land after following due process of law and thereby the petitioner became a lawful owner of the land in question. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, provisions of Section 5 would not operate because the prohibition is on registration of any document relating to transfer or creation of any interest in assigned land. In the instant case, the transaction in pursuance of which the land had been purchased by the petitioner was valid and not contrary to the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act. In such a case, in our opinion, if the concerned party had approached the District Collector for obtaining prior permission, the District Collector was bound to accord necessary permission in favour of the person seeking such permission. At the most, the authorities could have approached the District Collector for seeking permission under Section 5 and in that event, the District Collector was bound to give permission in view of the fact that the bank, admittedly a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Co- operative Societies Act, could have become a mortgagee in respect of the assigned land.”
7. In view of the legal position enunciated by the Division Bench of this Court, the objection raised by the registering authority by referring to the unupdated revenue records is illegal. The title having been validly passed to the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to alienate the property as they wish and there cannot be any objection in carrying out the alienation.
8. This Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub- Registrar, Siddavatam Mandal, YSR Cuddapah District (4th respondent) to receive and process the Deeds of Conveyance concerning land to an extent of Ac. 5.03 cents in Survey No.906/1, Ac. 5.00 cents in Survey No.906/2, Ac. 3.45 cents in Survey No.907/1 and Ac. 5.00 cents in Survey No.907/2 respectively of Peddapalle Village, Siddavatam Mandal, YSR Cuddapah District, as and when presented in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and release the documents, if the documents are otherwise in order.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 13th June, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.35041 of 2013 Date: 13th June, 2014 KL