1 APHC010125982020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 7687/2020 Between: Vegiraju Anuradha, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Y. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the action of the 3rd respondent in not receiving and registering the sale deed/document submitted by the petitioner in respect of house property admeasuring 70.93 sq. yards, situated in Sy.No.56/2 & 57/2 of Pothinamallayapalem, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam District. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that originally, an extent of Ac.4.43 cents in Sy.No.56/2 and an extent of Ac.0.57 cents in Sy.No.57/2 of Pothinamallayapalem were assigned to one Pupalla Appalla Swamy under the Ex-Serviceman quota on 08.08.1965. The petitioner herein purchased the subject property from the legal heirs of the assignee vide Registered Sale Deed document No.4227/2015, dated 26.06.2015 and got registered in his favour. Subsequently, permission for construction of independent houses and apartments was granted by the Municipal Authority. However, when the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent for registration of the sale deed, the 3rd respondent refused to receive and register the sale deed, stating that the subject land was included in the prohibitory list under Section of 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. He stated that, when the 3rd respondent refused to register the documents of the transferees of other bit of lands in the very same survey numbers, they approached this Court by way of filing writ petitions vide W.P.Nos.21065 & 6450 of 2011. Accordingly, this Court allowed the said writ petitions, directing the 3rd respondent to receive and register the documents presented by the petitioners therein. He further stated that the petitioner’s brother had purchased a part of land from the same vendor in the same survey numbers, and when the registration of the that document was refused for registration, he approached this Court through W.P.No.7669 of 2020 and this Court has directed the registering authority to receive and register the document presented by the petitioner therein. In the light of the above, prays this Court to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 3 4. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner never presented any documents before him for registration. However, as per the revenue records, the subject lands were classified as Governments lands, and as such, the document relating to the same cannot be entertained. It is further stated that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.198, dated 05.05.2016, notifying the list of Government lands of Visakhapatnam District under Section 22-A (1) (e) of Registration Act, 1908, in which the subject land is notified, as ‘Assigned Land’. In view of the same, the property is prohibited from registration. 5. A perusal of the notification annexed to the counter affidavit does not contain Sy.Nos.56/2 & 57/2. However, no relevant column of the reasons for prohibition was mentioned, as the subject lands were classified as Government lands. 6. It is relevant to extract the relevant portion of Section 22A 1(e) of the Act, 1908, which reads as follows: “Any documents or class of documents pertaining to the properties the State Government may, by notification prohibit the registration in which anowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal, Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and other which are likely to adversely affect these interest”. 7. The issue was considered by the full bench of High Court of Telangana in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others v. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Hyderabad and others1 and the relevant portion of the order is as follows: 1 2015 SCC Online Hyd 407. 4 “Perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 22-A would show that the State government shall publish a notification after obtaining reasons for and full description of the properties furnished by the district collectors in the matter as may be prescribed. Plain reading of this provision would further show that district Collectors are obliged to forward reasons for and full description of the prosperities to be notified for the purpose of clause (e) of sub-section (1). It is not an empty formality. The District Collectors are expected to state the reasons and also furnish full description of properties for issuance of notification and its publication in the official gazette. This exercise is necessary since the Central and the State Government and the other institutions, as mentioned in clause (e), though cannot claim ownership but have an avowed and accrued interest and since such interest is likely to be adversely effected if the document is registered.” 8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 & 3 to receive and register the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring 70.93 sq. yards in Sy.No.56/2 & 57/2 of Pothinamallayapalem, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam District. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA,J Date: 25.02.2025 ANS 5 267 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 7687/2020 Date: 25.02.2025 ANS