HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26949 of 2014 Date: 13.10.2014 Between :
E.Padmavathi W/o. Venkateswarlu Goud, Age 41 years, R/o. Nandanapalli Village, Kurnool Mandal and District and another and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool and another.
… Petitioners … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26949 of 2014 ORDER:
With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
2. Petitioners are the business partners and purchased the land to an extent of Ac.4.26 cents in Sy.No.660/1 of Nandanapalli Village, Kurnool Mandal and District. Petitioners formed layout of residential colony and obtained approval from the Gram Panchayat of Nandanapalli vide proceedings No.1/1 dated 15.11.2010. Some of the plots were already sold. At this stage, the District Collector, Kurnool District, addressed a letter to the Registrar, District Registrar Office, Kurnool, dated 04.03.2014 informing the District Register that the layout was not formed in accordance with the Rules, more particularly that layout does not have an approval of the Director of Town and Country Planning, and 10% of open site to an extent of Ac.0.24 cents was not registered in favour of Nandanapalli Grampanchayat.
3. When the petitioners sought to present the deeds of conveyance of some of the plots, the Sub-Registrar refused to receive the documents by referring to the letter addressed by the District Collector dated 04.03.2014. This writ petition is instituted challenging the action of the Sub-Registrar in refusing to receive and process the deeds of conveyance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the letter of the District Collector cannot be the basis for the Sub-Registrar to refuse to receive and process the deeds of conveyance presented before him. The said letter is not in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Only if a notification is issued under Section 22-A, the registering authority can refuse to receive and process the deed of conveyance and merely on the basis of the letter addressed by the District Collector, the registration cannot be refused.
5. Learned counsel therefore submits that if it is the case of the District Administration that petitioner has violated Rules, 2002 in obtaining layout and not keeping open space, powers vested in them by the Rules to take action against the petitioners, but they cannot mandate the District Registrar not to undertake registration of deeds of conveyance.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute that the letter is not in accordance with the provision of the Registration Act and the direction issued by the District Collector is not valid.
7. Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 (Rules, 2002), prescribes procedure for obtaining layout. If the population of the village is less than 10,000, the Gram Panchayat is competent to grant sanction for layout subject to the condition that there is Indicative Land Use Plan prepared for the village by the Town and Country Planning Department. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 11 mandates that the open spaces such as parks and playgrounds earmarked in accordance with Rules in a layout should automatically stand transferred free of cost and vest with the Gram Panchayat free from all encumbrances. As required a letter was submitted for approval of layout to the Gram Panchayat and Gram Panchayat granted final approval. In the plan placed before this Court, open space of 10% of the total development i.e., Ac.0.24 cents is left open and learned counsel, on instructions, submits that immediately petitioner would submit a letter to the Gram Panchayat transferring the open space earmarked such as parks and playgrounds to the Gram Panchayat. Rule 33 of the Rules, 2002, empowers the competent authority to take penal action if a person has violated the provisions of the Rules. If the District Collector was of the opinion that an illegal layout was made against the provisions of the Rules, 2002, he ought to have directed the competent authority to initiate penal action against the petitioners. It is strange that without taking recourse to provisions of Rules, 2002, a direction was issued to Registration Department not to undertake registrations. No such power is vested in the District Collector. Such action is ex facie illegal.
8. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in G.Narsaiah and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Registration and Stamps Department, through its Sub-Registrar, Kodakandla, Warangal
[1]
District and another .
9. The following issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court.
“Whether Sub-Registrar could refuse to entertain a document for registration even before its presentation.”
This Court observed as under:
“5. …. Amazingly the Sub Registrar has acted under the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, least appreciating that the Revenue Divisional Officer is a stranger to the scheme of the Act / Rules who has no control over the Sub Registrar and has no power to give a direction to him not to entertain the document. The direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer is e x facie contrary to the provisions of the Act so is refusal to entertain the document, hence without jurisdiction. We rule so because the Sub registrar is the statutory authority who is required to act in accordance with the mandate of the Act and not under the directions of an unauthorized authority. That being the legal position, the Sub-Registrar has no power to refuse to entertain a document for registration on the direction of some one. The question is accordingly answered in the negative.”
10. In view of the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of G.Narsaiah (supra), the decision of the Sub- Registrar not entertaining the deed of conveyance presented by the petitioners cannot be appreciated. The Sub-Registrar cannot act upon a letter written by the District Collector as the same is not in accordance with the provision of the Indian Registration Act and such order amounts unauthorized instructions.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Sub- Registrar, Stamps and Registration, Kurnool, Kurnool district (2nd respondent) to receive and process the deeds of conveyance as and when presented by the petitioners concerning the layout in Sy.No.660/1 to an extent of Ac.4.26 cents of Nandanapalli village, Kurnool Mandal and District, without reference to the letter of District Collector, dated 04.03.2014. However, petitioners shall immediately submit a letter handing over open spaces meant for parks and playgrounds earmarked in accordance with the Rules, 2002 to an extent of 10% of the total layout to the Gram Panchayat and shall enclose a copy of the letter acknowledged by the Gram Panchayat along with deeds of conveyance for registration. However, the said registration shall not preclude the competent authority to take action as per the provision of Rules, 2002, if it is found that petitioner has violated the said provisions.
Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 13.10.2014 kkm HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26949 of 2014 Date: 13.10.2014 kkm
[1] 2011 (3) ALT 415 (D.B.)