HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 33260 of 2013 Date: 12.6.2014 Between :
Nuthakki Venkata Purnachandra Rao R/o D No. 3-280, Opposite Sivalayam Temple Kanuru village, Penamaluru mandal, Krishna district … Petitioner and The Govt of A.P., Rep by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Hyderabad and others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 33260 of 2013 ORDER:
Case of the petitioner is that his father has purchased land to an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in R.S. No.33/3, Kanuru village, Penamaluru mandal, Krishna district from Sri Bolli Kolla Suryanarayana vide document No. 502/1950 dated 5.3.1950 and ever since the family of the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. There was a family partition and land to an extent of Ac.0.26 cents in R.S. No. 33/3 has fallen to the share of the petitioner. Petitioner intended to sell the said land and when he approached the Tahsildar for issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’, Tahsildar vide Letter Dis No. 728/2013 dated 12.11.2013 informed the petitioner that the subject land claimed by him was given to Sri Bollikolla Suryanarayana by way of ‘conditional patta’ , therefore no alienation can be made and thus refused to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’. Aggrieved there by, this writ petition is instituted.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Sri Bollikolla Suryanarayana had valid title and father of the petitioner has purchased the property after due verification of the revenue records as early as in the year 1950. At the time of registration, no objection was raised and for more than 60 years family of the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said land and their possession and enjoyment was never doubted. Thus, refusal to furnish ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the Tahsildar is erroneous. He further contended that even assuming that assignment was made to Sri Bollikolla Suryanarayana, admittedly, said assignment was prior to 1954 inasmuch as father of the petitioner purchased the subject land in the year 1950 from Sri Bollikolla Suryanarayana. Such assignment is not constrained by any restriction, therefore, alienation by Sri Bollikolla Suryanarayana in the year 1950 was validly made.
He further submits that even assuming that there was any restraint, since the transaction of 1950 is not disputed and since petitioner’s family was granted pattadar passbook and title deed and their enjoyment and possession has not been disputed, their status as owners of the property with right to alienate, cannot be doubted.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 5, it is asserted that as per RSR, in the year 1932 conditional patta was granted to Bollikolla Suryanarayana. In view of the provisions contained in A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, there cannot be any alienation of land by assignee who was granted assignment with conditions. Having realized that illegal transaction has taken place in the year 1950, notices were served on petitioner and after considering their objections, the issue is kept pending. Since conditional patta was assigned to vendor of the petitioner, the provisions of G.O.Ms.No. 1142 dated 18.6.1954 are also not applicable.
4. Though an assertion is made that the patta granted to Bollikolla Suryanarayana was conditional but it is not stated as to what are the conditions imposed while granting patta. It is also not stated as to whether it was an assigned land or otherwise. The effect of such grant of patta recorded as early as in the year 1932 is not in dispute. The fact that father of the petitioner purchased very same property in the year 1950 and grant of pattadar passbook and title deeds in favour of the petitioner and possession and enjoyment of the family of the petitioner since 1950 are not disputed. As evident from reading of G.O.Ms No. 1142 dated 18.6.1954, the condition against alienation in case of assignment was introduced for the first time by said Government order. Thus, assignments made prior to 18.6.1954 are not prohibited from alienation. Unless respondents prove that there was prohibition against alienation on patta granted to the vendor of petitioner, there cannot be any restraint from alienating the property. Respondents failed in substantiating their stand by producing relevant record.
5. Even assuming that such conditional patta was granted to the vendor, since 1950 family of the petitioner are in possession and enjoyment mitigate against respondents. They are bonafide purchasers having purchased the subject land in the year 1950 and their possession and enjoyment over the said land is not disputed. Therefore, for more than 60 years family of petitioner is in possession and enjoyment and at this stage the petitioner cannot be denied of his right to alienate the property.
6. On detailed consideration of various provisions of Registration Act and issues concerning alienation of the property in batch of writ petitions, learned single judge of this Court in RAAVI SATISH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (REGISTRATION AND STAMPS) DEPARTMENT AND
[1]
OTHERS delineated important points on various issues concerning registration of documents. Insofar as assignment and consequential right to alienation, conclusions are under:
“D) In cases of assigned lands, if there is clear proof to the effect that such assignments were made prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 1142, dated 18-6-1954 in the Andhra Area and G.O.Ms. No. 1406, dated 25-7-1958 in the Telangana Area, the Registering officers shall receive and register the documents, notwithstanding the fact that the properties were included in the prohibitory lists sent by the Revenue authorities. In respect of the documents involving properties assigned subsequent to the issuance of the above mentioned G.Os., in view of the embargo contained in Section 5 (2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the Registering officers shall make an endorsement while refusing to receive the document specifying the reason. If the parties feel aggrieved by such orders, they are entitled to avail appropriate remedy as available in law.”
7. In the instant case, record filed in this case discloses that assignment was made prior to 1950. Respondents also admit the same. If an assignment is made prior to 1954 there is no embargo on the assignee , his successors in alienating the land assigned. Thus, including such land in the list of prohibited properties was erroneous. Such inclusion cannot be a ground to refuse to receive and process the deed of conveyance. Thus, in the facts of this case, it is imperative for the registering authority to receive and register the deed of conveyance notwithstanding the fact that property was included in the prohibited list sent by revenue authorities. Registering authority also erred in insisting to produce ‘no objection certificate’ from revenue authorities.
8. In catena of decisions, this Court held that with reference to registration of documents in accordance with Indian Registration Act question of insistence of ‘No objection certificate’ from revenue authorities as a condition precedent to process the deeds of conveyance, does not arise. Thus, question of insistance of ‘No objection certificate’ or refusal to issue ‘No objection certificate’ by revenue authorities to process the deed of conveyance by registering authority does not arise.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid findings, the writ petition is allowed. T h e Sub Registrar-5th respondent is directed to receive the document as and when presented and process the deed of conveyance with regard to land to an extent of Ac.0.26 cents in R.S. No.33/3A, Kanuru village, Penamaluru mandal, Krishna district in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 register and release the document, if it is otherwise in order.
P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE:12.6.2014 TVK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 33260 of 2013 Date: 12.6.2014
[1] 2013(1) ALT 774