APHC010151912021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9141/2021 Between: Smt. B. Hemalatha and others The State of A.P and others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioners authorities have not considered the representation deletion of their property from the under Section 22-A (1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 2. Heard Sri Kalava Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9141/2021 Smt. B. Hemalatha and others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of A.P and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Respondent(S): The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioners, in short, is that the respondent have not considered the representations of the petitioner property from the Prohibited Properties List maintained A (1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. Heard Sri Kalava Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) is that the respondent petitioners for maintained Heard Sri Kalava Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that Petitioner No.1 purchased land to an extent of Ac.0.81 cents in survey No.10-1A and petitioner No.2 purchased the land to an extent of Ac.2.61 cents situated in survey No.10-1C along with other properties from the lawful vendor under registered document bearing Nos.4546 of 1978 dated 21.09.1978 and 3459 of 1981 dated 06.07.1981. The petitioners’ names were mutated in the revenue records and they have been issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of their subject lands. He further submitted that as the petitioners approached respondent No.6 for issuance of Market Value Certificate to alienate the subject lands to third parties, respondent No.6 refused to issue the same on the ground that the subject lands were included in the Prohibited Properties List. He further submitted that petitioner No.2 has made spandana application dated 09.12.2019 to respondent Nos.3 and 4 and petitioner No.1 has also made representation to respondent No.4 for deletion of their subject properties from the Prohibited Properties List, but the respondent authorities have not passed orders on those representations. He further submitted that it would suffice for the time being if a direction is given to the respondent authorities to dispose of the petitioners’ applications/representations in a time bound manner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while placing the proceedings of the District Collector, Annamayya District, Rayachoty, dated 21.08.2023, submitted that the District Collector has 3 instructed the concerned registration authority for deletion of the land of petitioner No.2 from the Prohibited Properties List, as such there is nothing remains for adjudication against petitioner No.2. He further submitted that there is no endorsement of the Tahsildar in the application of petitioner No.1 and further the Tahsildar has no power to denotify the subject properties from the Prohibited Properties List. He further submitted that until and unless petitioner No.1 makes an application to the District Collector for deletion of her property from the Prohibited Properties List, the same cannot be entertained. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. To the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the property of petitioner No.1 is situated very adjacent to the property of petitioner No.2 and further petitioner No.1 has purchased the property from the same vendor of petitioner No.2. As such, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of petitioner No.1. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners got purchased their subject lands from their vendor and later the subject properties were included in the Prohibited Properties List. Perusal of the proceedings of the District Collector, Annamayya District, Rayachoty vide R.DisE3/1512/2023 dated 21.08.2023 would indicate that the District Collector has instructed the District Registrar, Rayachoty to issue 4 suitable instructions to the concerned Registration authority for deletion of the land of petitioner No.2 in survey No.10/1C to an extent of Ac.2.61 cents of Pappireddipalle village, Madanapalle Mandal from the list of Prohibited Properties under Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. In so far as the case of petitioner No.1 is concerned, the application of petitioner No.1 does not contain any endorsement of the Tahsildar evidencing its reception in the office. As rightly contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to entertain the application of petitioner No.1 for deletion of the land from the Prohibited Properties List, it is for the District Collector to pass orders for denotifying the land from the Prohibited Properties List. 8. In view of the above and taking the submissions of both the learned counsel into consideration, as instructions were given by the District Collector for deletion of the property of petitioner No.2 from the Prohibited Properties List, there is nothing left for adjudication against petitioner No.2. In so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, since the property of petitioner No.1 is situated adjacent to the property of petitioner No.2 and that too petitioner No.1 has purchased the property from the same vendor of petitioner No.2 as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition giving liberty to petitioner No.1 to make fresh application before concerned District Collector for deletion of property from the Prohibited Properties List. 5 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to petitioner No.1 to make a detailed application/representation by raising all the grounds that are raised and urged before this Court by enclosing supporting material to the concerned District Collector. On receipt of such application, the concerned District Collector shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law by duly taking into consideration the material placed by petitioner No.1 and also by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to petitioner No.1 and pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation of petitioner No.1 and communicate the same to petitioner No.1. In so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the District Collector is directed to denotify the property of petitioner No.2 forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. _________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 30.01.2025 MP 6 429 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.9141 OF 2021 30.01.2025 MP