HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8732 of 2013 Date: 10.6.2014 Between :
S.Santha Kumari W/o S Vijay Kumar Reddy R/o D No. 42/514/1A, N G O colony, Kadapa and another … Petitioners and The State of A.P., Rep by its District Collector, Kadapa and others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8732 of 2013 ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioners is that they purchased land to an extent of Ac. 1.10 cents in Survey No. 354/1A and Ac.1.05 cents in Survey No. 354/1B, Tadigotla village fields, C.K.Dinne mandal, YSR district from Sri K Chinna Kondiah on 14.6.2001 vide sale deed document No. 3590 and 3591 of 2001. Petitioners trace the history of passing on the title to them. According to the petitioners, Sri K Chinna Kondiah purchased land from Smt Anuradha vide registered document No. 1348 of 1996 dated 15.4.1996. Petitioners are issued with pattadar pass books and title deeds. Petitioners and their previous owners were in continuous occupation and enjoyment. With an intention to dispose of the said land, when petitioners approached the Sub Registrar to furnish the market value, the Sub Registrar refused to furnish market value holding that the subject land is Government land, therefore there can be no assessment of market value and deed of conveyance cannot be processed. Aggrieved thereby this writ petition is instituted.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that title has been validly passed on to the petitioners and petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the land and Sub Registrar cannot refuse to furnish the market value of the property.
3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 deposed by N.Ravi Shankar Reddy, Tahsildar, C.K.Dinne mandal, Kadapa. It is averred that original extent of land in survey No. 354 was Ac.6.60 cents and the same was standing in the name of Sri Boreddy Subbudu classified as ‘private patta land’. That whareabouts of Sri Boreddy Subbudu are not known. Subsequently survey No. 354 was sub-divided into Survey No. 354/1A with an extent of Ac.1.10 cents and survey No. 354/1B with an extent of Ac.1.05 cents. There is no discussion regarding remaining extent of land. It is further averred that land in survey No. 354/1A was assigned to Sri Putta Rama Krishna Reddy vide D.K.T No. 318/88 dated 8.9.1978 and land in survey No. 354/1B was assigned to Sri Rami Reddy vide G.O.Ms No. 1142 Rev.(Assn) dated 18.6.1954.
4. Learned counsel disputed assertions made in the counter affidavit. It was also contended that no evidence was produced in support of the stand of the respondents 1 to 3 that the land was assigned to persons named in the counter affidavit. It was represented that relevant records are not traceable. Having regard to rival submissions, this Court by order dated 11.09.2013 directed the concerned authority to file affidavit assigning reasons for non availability of records as well as statement regarding non availability of records.
5. The same deponent filed additional counter affidavit. Para 3 of the additional counter affidavit reads as under:
“3. In this connection it is submitted that once again all connected records and village accounts have been verified. As per 10 (1) record of Tadigotla village, theland in S No. 354/1A an extent of Acs.1.10 cents was assigned to Sri Putta Rama Krishna Reddy of Tadigotla village vide DKT No. 318/88 dated 8.9.1978 and in sy No. 354/1B an extent of Acs. 1.05 cents was assigned to Sri Rami Reddy S/o Bali Reddy Thimma Reddy of Tadigotla village but the original DKT file or DKT register are not traced out, even though sincere efforts were made. Photostat copy of the 10 (1) account of the Tadigotla village enclosed.”
6. Thus, it is clear from the above averments that though the respondents are making an assertion that land was assigned to two persons, but the particulars of assignment are not available and except stating patta numbers, relevant records are not produced and when asked by the Court, they now state that records are not available. Thus, a bald statement is made by the respondents without producing material in support of their assertion that the subject land was assigned.
7. Respondents 1 to 3 admit that originally land in survey no. 354 before its division was recorded as private patta land and total extent of land is Ac.6.60 cents. When it is claimed as private patta land, it is not stated as to how the private patta land is converted into Government land and then assigned to some other persons. Thus, in the absence of record and a clear statement as to how steps were taken by the Government to convert private patta land as Government land and assigned and in the absence of relevant records showing appropriate assignments in favour of those two persons, the assertion of the learned counsel for petitioners that the statements of respondents is not true and title has validly passed on to the petitioners from their previous vendors, cannot be brushed aside.
8. In view of tracing of title by the petitioners and earlier registrations made on the same property since year 1985, it is but imperative to hold that the petitioners have valid title to the land purchased by them on 14.6.2001. Thus, the objection raised by the Sub Registrar in refusing to furnish the market value by referring to some correspondence of revenue authority, is erroneous, since revenue authorities failed to establish that it was a Government land and that the land was assigned to land less poor. Placing reliance on the information furnished by the revenue authority and refusing to furnish market value is erroneous. As held by this Court in catena of decisions, unless a notification is issued under Section 22 (A) (2) of the Registration Act, the Sub Registrar has no authority to deny entertainment of a deed of conveyance and processing the same for registration. In the instant case, no such notification is issued and as evident from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3, there is no record available with them to support their stand that the land claimed by petitioners was assigned to some other persons.
9. Accordingly, the 4th respondent is directed to furnish market value for the land to an extent of Ac.1.10 cents in Survey no. 354/1A and Ac.1.05 cents in Survey No. 354/1B, Tadigotla village fields, C.K Dinne mandal, YSR District, and as and when the documents are presented by the petitioners, receive and process the documents in terms of Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, register and release the document, if otherwise in order. It is made clear that right of Government to assert and establish title by due process of law is not denuded on account of carrying out registration of the deeds of conveyance proposed by the petitioners.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sequel to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any stand dismissed.
P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE:10.6.2014 TVK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8732 of 2013 Date: 10.6.2014