APHC010359672018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16842/2018 Between: 1. VELLANKI ANJANEYA KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O LATE SEETHARAM MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC EX-SERVICEMAN, R/O H.NO. 44-23-35/2, RAILWAY NEW COLONY, VISAKAPATN AM. 2. POTLURI SRINIVASA CHAKRAVARTHI, S/O LATE RAM KOTESWAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O T.S.NO.973, D.NO.7-18-8, PLOT NO.39, FLAT NO.3, VEPA HEIGHTS KIRLAMPUDI LAYOUT, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (REGISTRATION-II) SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, ANANDAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in 2 VS,J W.P.No.16842 of 2018 refusing to receive the petitioners document for registration of the property in Sy.No.1-1, Adm. Ac.2-68cents and in Sy.No .8-1 Adm 2-32 cents total adm. Ac.5-00 situated at Jagannadapuram Village,AnandapuramMandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 to receive the petitioners document for registration and to register the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to receive and register the documents of the petitioners land in Sy.No.1-1, Adm. Ac.2-68cents and in Sy.No.8-1 Adm. 2-32 cents total adm. Ac.5-00 situated at Jagannadapuram Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and to release the same, pending disposal of the main Writ. Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to the the petitioner herein / Respondent No.3 in the Writ Petiiton No. 16842 of 2018 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.16842 of 2018 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in refusing to receive the petitioners’ document for registration of the property in Sy.No.1-1, Adm. Ac.2-68 cents and in Sy.No.8-1 Adm. Ac.2-32 cents total adm. Ac.5-00 cents situated at Jagannadapuram Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to receive the petitioners’ document for registration and to register the same ….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner was granted assignment, pursuant to an application made by him, vide patta D.R.No.18/1410 SA, dated 25.01.2001, of an total extent of Ac.5-00 cents i.e., Ac.2-68 cents in Sy.No.1-1 and Ac.2-32 cents in Sy.No.8-1 situated at Jagannadapuram Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Thereafter, the name of the 1st petitioner was mutated in the revenue records. While the things stood thus, the 1st petitioner intended to sell the property in favour of the 2nd petitioner. Accordingly, the 1st petitioner approached the 3rd respondent on 27.04.2018. However, the 3rd respondent refused to receive the document proposed for sale of the subject property in favour of the 2nd 4 VS,J W.P.No.16842 of 2018 petitioner without assigning any valid reason, except stating that unless the petitioner produced „No Objection Certificate‟ from the concerned Tahsildar, the said document will not be entertained. Aggrieved by the said action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in insisting for NOC from the Revenue Department, the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. Respondent No.3 has filed a counter affidavit , wherein it is stated that, as per the material available on record, an extent of 807.30 cents in Sy.No.1/1 and an extent of Ac.2.32 cents in Sy.No.8/1 of Jagannadhapuram Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, were included in the list of prohibited lands notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, under the classification of “P. Konda-Government”, as furnished vide Rc.No.3795/2007/E1, dated 10.06.2017, by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, through proper channel to respondent No.3. It is further stated that once the survey numbers, along with their extents, were included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A and fed into the CCA data, the 3rd respondent has no authority to entertain any document relating thereto unless the said property was de-notified from the prohibited list. It is further stated that, in the absence of de-notification orders and until deletion from the prohibited list, the respondents cannot undertake registration of any document relating to the subject property. It is also contended that the petitioner, instead of approaching the competent authoritative committees for redressal of his grievance and for deletion of the subject property from the purview of prohibited properties in terms of G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (Assn.I) 5 VS,J W.P.No.16842 of 2018 Department, dated 04.07.2016, has approached this Court, despite being informed by the 3rd respondent with regard to the inclusion of the subject property in the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. It is further contended that the petitioner never submitted any document for registration, but, merely enquired in the office of the respondents regarding payment of the requisite stamp duty for registration of the document, and that, if at all the petitioners submit any document for registration, the same will be considered in accordance with Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short „the Act‟). 5. For better appreciation of the issue, it is relevant to refer to Section 71 of the Act, which reads as follows: 71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded.-(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situated within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record the reasons for such order in his Book No.2, and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.” (2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and having regard to the provisions of Section 71 of the Act, the 6 VS,J W.P.No.16842 of 2018 3rd respondent is directed to receive and process the document(s), as and when presented by the petitioners for registration, in accordance with the provisions of Section 71 of the Act. In the event the instrument presented cannot be registered, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders, as required under Section 71 of the Registration Act. It is needless to observe that such an order is appealable under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908. 7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated 19.06.2026 KGR