Between:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33913 of 2013 Date : 09.06.2014 Dasari Siva Raghavaiah, s/o. Ramachandraiah, Aged about 51 years, Occu : Agriculturist, r/o.Gangarajupadu Village, Koduru Mandal, Y.S.R. District.
… Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District and others.
… Respondents This Court made the following :
ORDER :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33913 of 2013 The case of the petitioner is that petitioner purchased the house site to an extent of 504.166 square yards in Sy.No.572 of Reddivaripalli Gram Panchayat, Koduru Village fields, Koduru Mandal, Y.S.R. District, from one Kasthuri Subbamma under registered sale deed dated 27.09.2000 bearing Document No.1109 of 2000. The vendor of the petitioner purchased the said property from one Mullangi Kamakshiah under registered sale deed dated 20.06.1994. Petitioner contends that the property is a private patta land and there is no restraint from alienating the property. Petitioner intended to sell the property due to his family necessities and when he approached the Sub-Registrar, Pullampet, Y.S.R. District (4th respondent) requesting him to furnish market value particulars of the said property, the 4th respondent refused to furnish market value holding that the said property is included in the prohibited land list. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is instituted.
2. Written instructions are furnished by the Tahasildar, Railway Koduru to the Government Pleader in his letter Ref.No.B/339/2013, dated nil-12-2013. As per the written instructions, the stand of the Department is that in R.S.R. of Kodur village, against the land in Sy.No.572 to an extent of Ac.0.98 cents dots are shown. Since the dots are shown, the land is treated as Government land. It is further stated that as per the record of holdings, sale transactions did take place way back in the year 1918. The first sale transaction recorded on 15.08.1918 when document No.727 was registered. The Tahsildar avers that several such sale transactions were taking place since the year 1918.
3. Thus, the averments of the Tahsildar would disclose that since the year 1918, there have been sale transactions in the same subject land and at no point of time objection was raised including when the petitioner purchased the property in the year 2000. Except stating that in R.S.R. of Kodur village against the land in Sy.No.572 to an extent of Ac.0.98 cents, dots are shown, no other material is placed before the Court supporting their contention that the property is Government land and, therefore, prohibited from alienation.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that mere showing of dots in R.S.R. of Kodur village does not establish title to the Government. He further contended that no statutory notification issued under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act prohibiting the property from alienation. Unless there is a statutory notification or evidence on record showing that the land is Government land, merely because dots are shown Government cannot assume the land as belonging to the Government.
5. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court on the scope of showing dots in the RSR, relevancy of entries in RSR and the power and competence of registering authority in refusing registration if there is no statutory notification prohibiting such registration.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, reiterated the stand of the Department that since the dots are shown in the RSR, the property is treated as Government land and, therefore, there was no illegality in refusing to furnish market value of the property by the Sub-Registrar. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader could not answer the contention that though transactions were permitted by the Registration Department, the request of petitioner to furnish market value was erroneous.
7. In several writ petitions, the issue as to entertaining the deed of conveyance for registration was considered on the ground that dots were shown in re-survey register maintained by revenue authorities.
8. Similar issue has come up for consideration in the case of P.Suresh V. State of A.P.[1][1], wherein it is held as under :
“From their own admission, it is evident that the respondents have not only recognised the sales, which took place from the year 1932, but also have made entries in the revenue records depicting the land as patta. In all fairness, they have admitted the possession of the respective owners upon the land. Further, at no stage, they have made any semblance of claim, much less have initiated steps to recover the land. They were obviously aware that almost for one century, the land is treated as patta and is under the enjoyment of private individuals. The view taken by the 2nd respondent in his letter vis-à- vis the above land as well as the action of the 3rd respondent in not accepting the documents presented by the petitioners would constitute the typical example of arbitrariness of very high order. It was these very authorities that entertained or permitted the sales in favour of the petitioners as recently as in the year 2008. Wisdom appears to have dawned upon them thereafter, may be for wrong reasons.”
9. In Madiga Papamma V. State of Andhra Pradesh and others[2][2], this Court held as under :-
“On many occasions, this Court had considered the effect of entry in the R.S.R. In a recent judgment, which was rendered on the basis of the previous judgments, in W.P.No.6016 of 2010, dated 02.07.2010, this Court has held as under :-
“In the present case, except for stating that entries in the Village Account R.S.R. of Doddipalli Village indicate the lands in Survey Nos.1969/2, 1972, 1969/1B and 1971 as Government lands, there is no other basis for the revenue authorities to stake a claim over the lands. To the contrary, the evidence on record, being registered transactions dating back to 1942, 1938, 1959 and 1972, the case may be, clearly negates the unilateral claim of the revenue authorities that this land is Government land. It is of course for the Government to assert and prove its title if it chooses to do so, in a properly constituted proceeding before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Without doing so, it is not open to the revenue authorities or the registration authorities to deny persons claiming rights over such land on the basis of mere revenue entries. The action of the respondents in treating the subject land as Government land and the action of the registration authorities in refusing to receive and register documents in respect of this land is therefore unsustainable in law”.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that since there is a dispute regarding title, the petitioner will have to get his title declared by approaching the competent civil Court.
I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. In view of the settled legal position that mere entry in R.S.R. will not constitute proof of title and in the absence of any other revenue record showing the land as Government land, it cannot be said that there is a dispute regarding title. At any rate, mere registration of a conveyance deed does not create title in the transferee. If the Government feels that the property belongs to it, it can always avail appropriate remedy to assert its title and claim the property. Mere registration of the sale deed would not come in the way of the Government in asserting its right and availing appropriate remedy.”
10. Following the said decisions, this Court allowed W.P.No.22450 of 2010. When similar issue has come up for consideration in W.P.No.22071 of 2011, on being enquired by the Court as to which law provides for showing dots in the revenue records, learned Government Pleader reported to the Court that there is no law governing that aspect. In view of the same and following earlier decisions, the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar therein to carry out registration notwithstanding the description of land in the revenue records.
11. In these type of cases, this Court consistently held that mere entry in the RSR does not constitute proof of title. In the absence of any other revenue record showing land as Government land, it cannot be said that it is a Government land. Further more, registration of a conveyance deed does not create title in transferee. Liberty is always available to the State to contest and prove that the property belongs to it. It can avail appropriate remedy to assert its title to the property and mere registration of the sale deed would not come in the way of State in asserting its right and availing appropriate remedy.
12. Though in the RSR dots are shown against column no.15, no other document is placed before this Court to show that the land is classified as Government land. On the contrary, the Tahsildar, admits that transactions were taking place in the said survey number since 1918. The possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioner is not denied. As evident from the order of this Court in W.P.No.22575 of 2013, the stand of the Department was that during survey settlement operations completed in the year 1916, lands were registered as Government lands, except which were under occupation of ryots, who were cultivating the same. In such case, only names of concerned ryots are entered in the revenue records and cultivable lands are assessed and non-cultivable lands were un-assessed. The lands which were not cultivated ownership was not shown and, therefore, dots were put in the relevant column. In Madiga Papamma, this Court held that mere entry in RSR would not cause proof of title in the absence of any other revenue record showing the land as Government land.
13. Following the earlier decisions referred to above and in view of the admitted fact that transactions were taking place since the year 1918 and the possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioner and his family and his vendors for several decades not denied, it is held that the decision of the Sub-Registrar in not furnishing the market value certificate of the property is erroneous.
14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar, Pullampet, YSR District (4th respondent) to furnish market value certificate of the property to an extent of 504.166 square yards in Sy.No.572 of Reddivaripalli Gram Panchayat, Koduru Village fields, Koduru Mandal, Y.S.R. District and process the deed of conveyance on the said property as and when presented by the petitioner in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and release the same, if it is otherwise in order. However, it is made clear that if the Sub-Registrar is of the opinion that for any other reason he cannot process the deed of conveyance, it shall be open to him to refuse to register the deed of conveyance by duly assigning the detailed reasons for such decision and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is also made clear that the registration of deed of conveyance does not take away the right of the Government to assert the title to the property and take appropriate course of action as warranted by law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date : 09.06.2014 kkm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO kkm
[1][1] 2009 (3) ALD 802
[2][2] 2011(2) ALD 487
WRIT PETITION No.33913 of 2013 Date : 09.06.2014