HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.27 of 2014 Date: 13.06.2014 Between :
Sadras Kumar, s/o. S.R.K.Hanumantha Rao, Aged 53 years, Occu: Advocate, D.No.78-10-10, Syamalanagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dist.
… Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents The Court made the following:
ORDER:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.27 of 2014 Petitioner is the purchaser of the property bearing Door No.22-1- 27, Ward No.3, Block No.5, Ramaraopeta, Kakinada to an extent of 471 2/3 square yards in T.S.No.501/1 (part). When the deed of conveyance was presented, the Sub-Registrar, Kakinada, passed endorsement on 30.12.2013 refusing to register the document. The Sub-Registrar stated that as per the assigned land list communicated by the concerned Tahsildar in his letter dated 08.10.2010 and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada in his letter dated 13.05.2008, the land in Sy.No.501/1 (Part) is prohibited property and hence, there cannot be any registration of sale transactions. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is instituted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vendor of the petitioner has clear title vested in him and, therefore, the vendor is entitled to sell the property and thus there is no illegality in the presentation of the document. Learned counsel further submits that Sy.No.501/1 (part) is an independent survey number and is not concerned with Sy.No.501/1A. The land in Sy.No.501/1A to an extent of Ac.14.00 (41850 square yards) comprising of buildings, fixtures etc., is treated to be the property belonging to Christian Institute and said property is prohibited. Prohibiting transfer of ownership on the said property, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued notification in exercise of power vested in Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, which was notified vide G.O.Ms.No.145, School Education (PS-3) Department, dated 18.12.2003. Thus, the description given in the said notification is clear and does not pertain to the property, which petitioner intended to buy. This fact is also clear from the letter dated 03.01.2008 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada to the District Registrar, Kakinada, wherein survey numbers mentioned are 69, 70, 501/1A, 5 & 7 of Kakinada town. Thus, the Sy.No.501/1 is not included. Learned counsel further submits that the very same registering authority entertained the sale transaction concerning the same survey number without raising any objection and referring to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3505 of 2011.
3. Based on the averments made by the third respondent in the counter-affidavit, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that T.S.No.501/1 is part of Sy.No.501/1A and, therefore, the restraint on carrying out the sale transactions would also apply to this property claimed by the petitioner. The Joint Sub-Registrar admits of the fact that property bearing Door No.22-1-28 in T.S.No.501/1 (part) which is on the Southern side of the petitioner’s property was registered. The justification for registration of the said property was a direction issued by this Court in w.P.No.3505 of 2011.
4. Registering authority can refuse to register the document presented for registration if a statutory notification is issued in exercise of power under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act. In exercise of the said power, notification was issued by the Government on 18.12.2003. This notification, in addition to the other properties, covers the property in Sy.No.501/1A. Except for this notification, no other notification is brought on record to show that other survey numbers are also restrained from being alienated. The letter of the Revenue Divisional Officer dt.3.1.2008 also refers to Sy.No.501/1A and few other survey numbers, but there is no reference to Sy.No.501/1 (Part). As per the assertion of the 3rd respondent, it appears that since the description of the property relates to Sy.No.501/1, he presumes that the same is part of Sy.No.501/1A and hence prohibited. Unless there is a clear mandate by the competent authority informing the Registering authority not to entertain any deed of conveyance in exercise of statutory power, the registering authority cannot presume hypothetically and refuse to entertain the deed of conveyance.
5. As admitted by the registering authority, Southern part of the property in the same survey was entertained and registration was carried on. The reasons assigned is that this Court issued directions in W.P.No.3505 of 2011. In W.P.No.3505 of 2011, the issue for consideration was whether the registering authority can insist for No Objection Certificate from the revenue authorities before entertaining a document for registration. This Court held, following the earlier decision that no such insistence can be made by the registering authority. Thus, there was no discussion regarding the nature of the land in Sy.No.501/1 (Part) or the prohibition imposed by the Government. Without raising objection, as now raised by the Sub- Registrar, which objection does not refer to obtaining of No Objection Certificate from the revenue authorities, the document was entertained and registration was carried on.
6. In the counter-affidavit, for the first time the Sub-Registrar contends that no objection certificate is necessary from the revenue authorities. The insistence of No Objection Certificate from the revenue authorities is held to be bad. Thus, production of No Objection Certificate is not necessary.
7. Thus, the only issue remains is whether the land in T.S.501/1 (part), which is claimed by the petitioner, is part of T.S.No.501/1A, which is prohibited. The notification as well as the correspondence between the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector only refers to Sy.No.501/1A and there is no reference to any other survey numbers or parts of Sy.No.501. It is not un-common that survey numbers were divided several times and by-numbers are assigned including English Alphabetic numbers. Each of such number constitute individual survey number and becomes a separate unit. Thus, unless a statutory authority notifies that Sy.No.501/1A also comprises of larger extent of Sy.No.501 or its smaller parts and prohibits registration of conveyance, the Sub-Registrar cannot presume and refuse to entertain the deed of conveyance. It is not averred by respondents that Sy.No.501/1 (part) is part of Sy.No.501/1A and that there is no independent Sy.No.501/1 (part) and therefore subject land is part of Sy.No.501/1A.
8. In the said view of the matter, order of refusal passed by the third respondent is set aside and third respondent is directed to receive and process the deed of conveyance in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and register and release the same to the petitioner if the document is otherwise in order. However, this order does not preclude the Government to establish by due process of law that the property in Sy.No.501/1 (part) is also prohibited property or that the subject land is part of Sy.No.501/1A.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any in this writ petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 13.06.2014 kkm Oval:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Writ Petition No.27 of 2014 Date: 13-06-2014 Kkm