IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.37889 of 2013 Between:
Patan Inthyaj Khan, S/o. Patan Sattar Khan, Aged 40 years, Occ: Agriculture & Business, R/o. Nandyalampet Village, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
.. Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & 5 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.37889 of 2013 ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s grand father Tupallu Mastan Saheb was assigned land in various survey numbers of Nandyalampet Village, Mydulur Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, totalling Ac. 3.64 cents vide DKT No.29/1362-F, dated 09.04.1953, including Ac. 0.33 cents in Survey No.278/A2. After the demise of the assignee, his wife succeeded and thereafter, the mother of the petitioner and now the petitioner. The said property is in possession and enjoyment of the family of the petitioner all along. A portion of the land i.e., Ac. 0.8 ¼ cents from out of the total extent of Ac.
0.33 cents in Survey No.278/A2 was sold in the year 1989 under registered Document No.1344/89, dated 16.05.1989. The petitioner intends to dispose of land to an extent of Ac. 0.20 cents in Survey No.278/A2 and when the petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar, Mydulur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District (3rd respondent) with the Sale Deed, the Sub-Registrar received and assigned the document number as P.No.152 of 2013 and by his endorsement, dated 22.11.2013, he returned the document on the ground that as per the revenue records, the land is classified as ‘Assigned Land’ with Code No.29 (D.K.T) and that entire extent of land in Survey No.278/A2 is treated as assigned land.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Venugopal, submits that when the assignment was made prior to 1954 i.e., on 09.04.1953, there is no restriction of alienation of the land assigned to the assignee or his successors and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to alienate the property and, therefore, the classification of land as ‘Assigned Land’ has no relevance since there was no such restriction imposed when land was assigned. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that no such objection was raised in the year 1989 when a portion of the land was sold and raising such objection for the first time is illegal.
3. On instructions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that as per the R.S.R, against Column 16, dots are shown and, therefore, the land is treated as Government land. There is no record available with the authorities with reference to any such assignment made on 09.04.1953 as claimed by the petitioner. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, therefore, submits that since there is no record available to show that an assignment was made on 09.04.1953 and when dots are shown in the R.S.R, it has to be treated as a Government land and, therefore, the question of alienation of Government land by private person does not arise. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that merely because no objection was raised in the year 1989, it cannot be contended that such an objection cannot be raised when registration is proposed now.
4. On the question of the description of land in the R.S.R and refusal for registration, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in
G. SATYANARAYANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA
[1] PRADESH
. The learned Single Judge of this Court has gone in depth into various provisions concerning the status of lands and alienation of the lands in the State of Andhra Pradesh and on detailed consideration, learned Judge recorded the summations of conclusions on various issues considered by the Court. Insofar as the case on hand, the conclusions 8 to 12 are relied on. They read as under:
“(8) A person in possession of land for 12 years or more without title can claim transfer of registry in his favour as envisaged by para-7 of BSO-31.
(9) Long possession supported by multiple registered sale transactions give rise to presumption of title. Such presumption is however rebuttable.
(10) RSR is not a stand alone document. It is one of the relevant records in determination of ownership.
(11) Description of Government land in RSR only means that it is not an inam land. It can include patta lands also.
(12) Dots or blank in pattadar column does not necessarily mean that the land is vested in or it belongs to the Government. Despite such blanks or dots, a private person can claim ownership based on entries in revenue record prepared both prior to and after the commencement of the 1971 Act, besides registered sale transactions. If the Government disputes such entries, it needs to get its right declared by instituting proceedings before the competent court of law.”
5. In the instant case also, the assignment is claimed to have been made on 09.04.1953, a copy of the original assignment order is enclosed at Page No.31 and the typed copy in Telugu version and translated version were also enclosed which disclose that apart from assignment of lands in other survey numbers, assignment to an extent of Ac. 0.33 cents in Survey No.278/A2 is also made, which is now the subject matter in this writ petition. The correctness of this document is not disputed by the respondents. The possession and enjoyment of the land by the petitioners for all these years is not disputed. The transaction earlier made in the year 1989 is also not disputed. The said transaction is not disturbed. The only defence appears to be that in the R.S.R, dots are shown. As held by this Court in the above judgment, mere showing of dots in pattadar Column does not necessarily mean that the land is vested in or it belongs to the Government. Even assuming that dots are shown and it was treated initially as a Government land, as long as the assignment made on 09.04.1953 is not disputed, it cannot be said that the land does not belong to the petitioner. The restriction of alienation of the properties which are assigned have come into force for the first time in the year 1954. Thus, assignments made prior to 1954 are not barred from alienation. Thus, looking from any angle, the action of the Sub-Registrar in refusing to process the Deed of Conveyance on the ground that it was an assigned land, without considering the fact that the assignment was made prior to 1954 is erroneous. Hence, the same is set aside.
6. The Sub-Registrar, Mydukur Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District (3rd respondent) is, accordingly, directed to process the Deed of Conveyance bearing P.No.152 of 2013 in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and if the document is otherwise in order, the Sub-Registrar shall receive, register and release the document. However, it is made clear that the registration of the document does not bar the Government in establishing his title in accordance with law.
7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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: 13th June, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.37889 of 2013 Date: 13th June, 2014 KL
[1] 2014 (3) ALT 473