THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.27731 of 2013 Dated : 05.06.2014 Between:
Ramananda, S/o Sreenivasa Shetty and others .. Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.27731 of 2013 ORDER :
The case of the petitioners is that their ancestors purchased the lands in Survey No.56A situated at Kalugodu Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District from Bommaiah, S/o Lingaiah, vide document No.1056 of 1942, dated 31.12.1942. Subsequently, the said land was partitioned and to each extent of the land owned by the petitioners, a separate number is assigned. With an intention to dispose of the said land, the petitioners approached the 5th respondent and requested him to furnish the market value of the land owned by them. The 5th respondent refused to furnish the market value on the ground that the said land is described as assigned land in the Government correspondence and that unless No Objection Certificate is obtained from the revenue authorities, no deed of conveyance can be processed.
2. The petitioners submitted an application to the Tahsildar, Gummagatta Mandal to issue No Objection Certificate. They requested the Tahsildar to furnish relevant records through which title has passed on to them. The petitioners appear to have enquired, verified the revenue records and found that though the land is described as assigned land, in support of the entry showing it as assigned land, no evidence is available. In his letter dated 28.06.2013, the Tahsildar admits the sale transaction made on 03.11.1942. He also observed that as per the village records, the status of the land in Survey No.56A (prior to the partition) to an extent of Acs.17.99 cents is not assigned land. He further observed that the land is to be treated as old patta land. On such verification and having come to the conclusion that it cannot be treated as assigned land and has to be treated as patta land, vide proceedings Rc.No.112/B/13, dated 28.06.2013, the Tahsildar, Gummagatta recommended to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalayandurgam to issue NOC. Even though such recommendation was made as early as 28.06.2013, so far no certificate is issued. Aggrieved by non-issuance of NOC by the revenue authorities and insistence of NOC by the Sub-Registrar, petitioners instituted this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said land owned by the petitioners is a private patta land. The previous owner viz., Y.Ramachandrappa sold the property to the ancestors of the petitioners as early as in the Year 1942 and ever since then, the family of the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the same. He submitted that by virtue of the partition, the total extent of Acs.17.99 cents is sub-divided among the petitioners’ family members and each of the family members now own different extents of land with different assignment numbers. The fact that the petitioners have purchased the said property in the Year 1942 and they are in enjoyment of the same is not disputed by the revenue authorities. He, therefore, submits that the refusal of the Sub-Registrar in furnishing the market value and insisting for NOC is illegal. He further contends that as held by this Court in a catena of decisions, there is no provision in the Registration Act to obtain NOC from the revenue authorities and therefore, the insistence of NOC from the revenue authorities is wholly illegal and without competence.
4. Counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, deposed by incumbent Tahsildar, dated 07.11.2013 was filed. The counter only reiterates the report of the Tahsildar dated 28.06.2013. Additional counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent deposed by incumbent, Revenue Divisional Officer.
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer repeats in several paras, the sum and substance of the contents of the report of Tahsildar dated 28.06.2013 but does not express any opinion whether the said report is valid and whether the recommendations of the Tahsildar can be accepted or not. However, the counter does not deny the claim of the petitioners that the said land is a private patta land and also does not dispute the correctness of the report submitted by the Tahsildar.
6. As admitted by the Tahsildar in his report dated 28.06.2013, there is no evidence in support of the stand of the department that the land in Survey No.56-A was an assigned land. On the contrary, the report of the Tahsildar would disclose that there is no record to support the said stand but the available village record would disclose that the land is a private patta land. The transaction that was made in the Year 1942, whereby petitioners’ ancestors purchased the land from the previous owner is not denied. The possession and enjoyment of the land by the family of the petitioners since 1942 till date is not denied. Thus, in the absence of clear proof in support of the stand of the respondents that it is an assigned land and on the contrary, the report of the Tahsildar holding that it has to be treated as private land which report is not discarded by the higher authority, the contention of the petitioners has to be held as valid and consequently the decision of the Sub-Registrar in not furnishing the market value is held as erroneous. Furthermore, the insistence of the Sub-Registrar for production of NOC from the revenue authorities is contrary to the provisions of law as held by this Court in a catena of cases.
7. Having regard to the above finding, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the Sub- Registrar, Rayadurgam, Anantapur District (5th respondent) to furnish the market value of the lands owned by the petitioners, which was given different bye numbers in Survey No.56-A of Kalugodu Village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District, receive and process the deeds of conveyance as and when the same are presented by the petitioners in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 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 : 05.06.2014 ssp