Between:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.35268 of 2013 Date : 09.06.2014 T.Gowri Sankar, s/o.T.Rajasekharam, Aged about 43 years, Occu : Business, r/o.Door No.2/1092, Srihari Rao Street, Nagarajupet, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District.
… Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District and others.
… Respondents This Court made the following :
ORDER :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.35268 of 2013 Petitioner avers that the land to an extent of Ac.1.16 cents in Sy.No.725 of C.K.Dinne village and Mandal, Y.S.R. District is owned and possessed by Bathula Chenchaiah, son of Laxmaiah. Petitioner intended to purchase the said land and entered into an agreement of sale on 12.03.2012. When the vendor of the petitioner requested the Sub-Registrar, Kadapa (Rural), Kadapa, Y.S.R.District (4th respondent) to furnish market value particulars, the 4th respondent refused to furnish the same holding that the property is included in the prohibited land list communicated by the Tahsildar, C.K.Dinne Mandal (3rd respondent). On a representation made, the 4th respondent gave an endorsement on 28.10.2013 to the same extent. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is instituted.
2. The 3rd respondent furnished written instructions to the Government Pleader in his letter Ref.No.B/213/2013, dated nil-12.2013. The 3rd respondent states that as per the R.S.R. of C.K.Dinne Village, land in Sy.No.725 to an extent of Ac.1.6 cents is treated as Government land since against pattadar column dots are shown and when dots are shown against pattadar column, land has to be treated as Government land. The 3rd respondent further avers that as per No.3 adangal of the village, Sri Bathala Chenchaiah name is recorded against Ac.1.16 cents in Sy.No.725. The Tahsildar admits of issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in Khata No.313. It is thus seen except for lone entry in R.S.R., the averments would disclose that it is not treated as Government land and the vendor’s name of the petitioner is shown in other revenue records. The vendor of the petitioner was also issued pattadar pass books and title, which are not cancelled as on today. Thus, the claim of the respondents to treat the land in issue as Government land is only based on lone entry in R.S.R. Except this, no other material is placed before this Court.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.”
7. 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.”
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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. The possession and enjoyment of the property by the vendor of 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. In 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.
11. Following the earlier decisions referred to above and in view of the admitted fact that the possession and enjoyment of the property by the vendor of the petitioner and his family for several decades not denied, it is held that the decision of the Sub-Registrar in not furnishing the market value certificate of the property is erroneous.
12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar, Kadapa (Rural), Kadapa, Y.S.R.District (4th respondent) to furnish market value certificate of the property to an extent of Ac.1.16 cents in Sy.No.725 of C.K.Dinne Village fields, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R. District 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 : 09.06.2014 kkm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO kkm
[1][1] 2009 (3) ALD 802
[2][2] 2011(2) ALD 487
WRIT PETITION No.35268 of 2013 Date : 09.06.2014