Between:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.6212 of 2014 Date : 05.06.2014 Kosangi Siddeswara Prasad s/o. Lingam Botlu, Aged about 75 years, Occu : Poojari, r/o.Ammavarisala Street, Koduru, Koduru Mandal, Y.S.R. District.
… Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents This Court made the following :
ORDER :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.6212 of 2014 Petitioner avers that his mother late Kosangi Krishnaveni purchased the property in Sy.No.677/A of Kodur Village and Mandal of Y.S.R. District through the registered sale deed dated 25.10.1945 from one Tota Ramaiah. It is further averred that Tota Ramaiah purchased the said property by way of registered sale deed dated 04.03.1938. Since 25.10.1945, mother of the petitioner was in enjoyment of the property bearing Door Nos.5/499 and 5/500 to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents and enjoyed all along. After the demise of his mother, petitioner being the sole legal heir is in possession and enjoyment of the above property. In support of his claim that his mother purchased the property, petitioner filed the sale deed dated 04.03.1938 of the vendor of his mother and sale deed dated 25.10.1945 of his mother as material papers to the writ petition. Petitioner avers that with an intention to dispose of the above said property, when he approached the Sub-Registrar for furnishing of market value of the property, Sub-Registrar by the order dated 03.02.2014 refused to furnish the market value of the property on the ground that the said property is classified as Government land as per the list furnished by the Revenue Authorities. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is instituted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner avers that the property in Sy.No.677/A of Kodur Village and Mandal is a private patta land owned by the petitioner. He is entitled to dispose of the said property and, therefore, the decision of the Sub-Registrar in refusing to furnish market value certificate of the property is erroneous.
3. The Tahasildar, Railway Kodur, vide letter reference No.B/51/2014, dated 11.03.2014 furnished written instructions to the Government Pleader, copy of which is furnished to the Court. As per the instructions furnished, it is seen that the land to an extent of Ac.1.82 cents in Sy.No.677/A is treated as Government Land since in the Re-settlement Registrar dots are shown in the said property under the heading of pattadar/inamdar (Column No.15). However, the Tahasildar admits that sale transactions were taking place in the said property since the year 1938. Along with the instructions, extract of RSR is enclosed. Against Column No.15, which deals the name of the pattadar or Inamdar or the Manager of the Institution to which the land belongs to, no entry is made and only dots are put. Since the dots are put in column No.15, it is treated as Government land.
4. Referring to the written instructions, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that merely because dots are shown in the column no.15, it cannot be said that it is the Government land. He emphasis that respondents admitted the sale transactions that have taken place. He submitted that petitioner is in enjoyment of the property for more than 50 years and it is illegal to deny the ownership of the property to the petitioner merely on the ground that in the RSR, dots are shown against column no.15. Learned counsel further argued that no statutory notification is issued under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act prohibiting the property from alienation and unless such statutory notification is issued, the registering authority has no power or competence to deny the registration of deed of conveyance.
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 Tahasildar, admits that transactions were taking place in the said survey number since 1938. 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. I n 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. As seen from the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.22575 of 2013 and the written instructions of the Tahasildar, the land in Sy.No.677/A of Kodur Village and Mandal is treated as Government land, since no entry is made against column no.15. Except this there is no material placed before this Court as proof that the land is 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 1938 and the possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioner and his family since the year 1945 are 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 (5th respondent) to furnish market value certificate of the property bearing Door Nos.5/499 and 5/500 to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.677/A of Kodur Village and Mandal 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 : 05.06.2014 kkm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO kkm
[1][1] 2009 (3) ALD 802
WRIT PETITION No.6212 of 2014 Date : 05.06.2014
[2][2] 2011(2) ALD 487