IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.1963 of 2014 Between:
G. Subbarayudu, S/o. G.Sivalangam, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kommarakottalu Village, Khajeepeta Mandal, Y.S.R. District & another .. Petitioners AND The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.1963 of 2014 ORDER:
The petitioners claimed to have purchased land to an extent of Ac. 1.91 cents out of Ac. 2.91 cents in Survey No.213/2 of Bhumayapalli Village Fields, Khajipet Mandal, Y.S.R. District, through an Agreement of Sale, dated 24.10.2013, for a valid sale consideration from the owner of the property. The petitioners submit that the vendor of the petitioners has a valid title and it is a private patta land. When the petitioners approached the Sub-Registrar, Mydukur, Y.S.R. District (5th respondent) to furnish the market value particulars, the Sub-Registrar by his endorsement, dated 20.12.2013, informed the petitioners that the land is classified as ‘Assigned Waste’ in the list communicated by the Tahsildar, Khajipet Mandal, Y.S.R. District (4th respondent) on 02.03.2012 and hence, no market value can be assessed. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is instituted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there have been several transactions in this land much prior to the independence and the property is a private patta land. In several transactions made earlier also, no objection was raised and the Deeds of Conveyance were registered. The vendors were granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Even in the Adangal, the property is described as private patta land. He, therefore, contends that the description of land as ‘Assigned Waste’ by the Tahsildar and directing the Sub-Registrar not to entertain the Deeds of Conveyance is ex facie illegal and arbitrary.
3. Relying on the written instructions furnished by the Tahsildar, Khajipet Mandal, Y.S.R. District (4th respondent) in his letter, dated 25.03.2014, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that in the Re-Settlement Register (R.S.R) of Bhumayapalli Village of Khajipet Mandal, the land is classified as ‘Government Irrigated dry’ without mentioning any registered name of the Pattadar in Column No.16 and dots are shown in Column No.16. He, therefore, submits that as per R.S.R, it is a Government land and the claim of the petitioners that it is a private patta land is erroneous.
4. However, in the written instructions furnished by the learned Government Pleader, the Tahsildar admits that in the Village Accounts i.e., Adangal, the names of the vendor of the petitioners is shown against Survey No.213/2, it is also stated that Survey No.213 was sub-divided into 213/1 and 213/2 and in 213/2, the total extent of land is shown as Ac. 2.91. The Tahsildar also admits that as per the Register of Holdings, several transactions were registered from the year 1915. Except for a solitary entry made in the R.S.R showing the land as ‘Government Irrigated land’ and showing dots against Column No.16, all other revenue records would support the stand of the petitioners that it is a private patta land and several transactions have taken place. In several writ petitions, the reliance on dots in the Re-Survey Register to claim as Government land and prohibition of the property from entertaining the Deeds of Conveyance is considered.
5. Similar issue has come up for consideration in the case of [1] P. SURESH Vs. STATE OF A.P. , 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.”
6. I n MADIGA PAPAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA [2] PRADESH AND OTHERS , 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.”
7. 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.
8. In these type of cases, this Court consistently held that mere entry in the R.S.R does not constitute proof of title. In the absence of any other revenue record showing the 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.
9. Though in the R.S.R, dots are shown against Column No.16, no other document is placed before this Court to show that the land is classified as Government land. On the contrary, the Tahsildar, in his written instructions, admits that transactions were taking place in the said Survey number since the year 1915. The possession and enjoyment of the property by the vendor of the petitioner and the vendor’s vendors 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’s Case (Supra 2), this Court held that mere entry in R.S.R would not cause proof of title in the absence of any other revenue record showing the land as Government land. As seen from the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.22575 of 2013 and the written instructions of the Tahsildar, the land in Survey No.213/2 of Bhumayapalli Village, Khajipet Mandal, Y.S.R. District, is treated as Government land, since no entry is made against Column No.16. Except this, there is no material placed before this Court as proof that the land is Government land.
10. Following the earlier decisions referred to above and in view of the admitted fact that the transactions have taken place since the year 1915 and the possession and enjoyment of the property by the vendor of the petitioner and the vendor’s vendors are not being denied, it is held that the decision of the Tahsildar holding the land as Assigned Waste and prohibited from registration as erroneous and illegal.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa Revenue Division, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District (3rd respondent) and the Tahsildar, Khajipet Mandal, Y.S.R. District (4th respondent) to suitably inform the Sub-Registrar, Mydukur, Y.S.R. District (5th respondent) that the property in issue is a private patta land and there is no prohibition from alienating the property, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when such communication is received and the Deed of Conveyance is presented by the petitioner, the same shall be received and processed in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and shall be registered, if the same is 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: 5th June, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.1963 of 2014 Date: 5th June, 2014 KL
[1] 2009 (3) ALD 802
[2] 2011 (2) ALD 487