APHC010173212021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: S Santha The State of AP and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M P V N V SASTRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no.3, without verifying their own record and without considering possession and title of the petitioner and her vendors, included her property, in an extent of Ac.2 cents situated in Survey No.1343/1 an W.P.No.9817 of 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9817/2021 ...PETITIONER AND and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) following: The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no.3, without verifying their own record and without considering possession and title of the petitioner and her vendors, included her property, in an extent of Ac.2 cents situated in Survey No.1343/1 and Ac.1-53 cents in Survey No.1342/2 RC,J W.P.No.9817 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no.3, without verifying their own record and without considering possession and title of the petitioner and her vendors, included her property, in an extent of Ac.2-63 53 cents in Survey No.1342/2 RC,J W.P.No.9817 of 2021 2 situated in Chintalapudi village, Chintalapudi Mandal, in prohibited properties in the list furnished to the Sub Registrar, Chintalapudi and rejected the claim made by the petitioner for deletion of the property from the said list vide impugned orders dated 18.01.2019. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she purchased Ac.2-63 cents out of the subject property under registered sale deed bearing No.1677 of 1996 and the remaining extent of the subject property under document No.1678 of 1996 of Sub Registrar’s Office, Chintalapudi. Her vendors got the property under registered will dated 22.10.1984 executed by their mother Smt.GottapuAnnamma, who in her turn purchased the property under registered sale deed bearing document No.947 of 1955, dated 24.09.1955 of Sub Registrar’s Office, Chintalapudi, wherein it was clearly mentioned that vendor of the document got the property through a patta. It is her further case that, she entered into agreement to sell the subject property and when she made enquiries, she was informed by the Village Revenue Officer that the properties was included in prohibited properties list furnished by the District Collector. In fact, based on the sale deed furnished, the petitioner was issued pattadar and title deed passbooks. Therefore, the authorities without verifying their own records since 1932, erroneously included the subject property in the prohibited properties list, RC,J W.P.No.9817 of 2021 3 without even mentioning under which category the property was included in the said list. Moreover, the lands assigned prior to 1954 shall not be included in prohibited list. It is her further case that challenging inclusion of the property, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.38927 of 2017 and this Court disposed of the same giving liberty to the petitioner to submit an appropriate representation to the committee constituted to deal with the issues relating to deletion of properties included under Section 22(1) of the Registration Act. Accordingly, a representation was submitted and as the District Collector did not dispose of the said representation, the petitioner filed a Contempt Case and subsequently, the District Collector disposed of the same denying the relief sought by the petitioner. Copy of the endorsement received from Joint Sub Registrar that was filed by District Collector along with his report in the contempt case mentions that there are no entries in respect of the properties from the year 1932 to 1954 in the Registrar Office. It is obvious that the District Collector without verifying the revenue records as to how the subject property classified as Gayalu in the printed RSR dated 05.11.1932 was devolved on Mohammad KhaduBeebi in the year 1955, simply relying on the information furnished by the Registering authority, rejected the claim made by the petitioner for deletion of her property from prohibited properties list. RC,J W.P.No.9817 of 2021 4 Further, the government cannot claim any right over the property in view of law of limitation. Hence, she filed this writ petition. 3. The respondent No.4-Tahsildar, filed counter-affidavit denying the material averments of the writ affidavit and further contending that the petitioner without submitting any representation to the District Collector as directed by this Court vide orders passed in Writ Petition No.38927 of 2017 filed contempt case as if the District Collector did not dispose of her representation. Thereafter, the District Collector issued notices to the petitioner to appear in person along with relevant records and on the date of hearing, the petitioner failed to produce any acknowledgment in token of submission of any representation. However, the District Collector upon examining the documents produced by the petitioner and considering the revenue records, rejected the claim made by the petitioner. Despite giving sufficient opportunity, the petitioner failed to submit documents to establish her right over the subject land and therefore, the District Collector had rightly rejected the claim made by the petitioner for deletion of subject property from prohibited properties list. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. The respondent No.5-Joint Sub Registrar filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ affidavit and further contended that the RC,J W.P.No.9817 of 2021 5 subject property was classified as ‘Assigned Land’ in the list of prohibited properties furnished by the District collector and unless the property is deleted from the prohibited properties list, the Registering authorities cannot register the document in relation to the properties found in the said prohibited list. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. The petitioner filed reply affidavit denying the averments of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.4 further contending that by filing copy of RSR pertaining to the year 1932 the respondent authorities are admitting that they included the property treating the same as government land as in RSR it was mentioned as ‘Gayalu’, however, it is a settled law that ‘Gayalu’ does not mean government land and simply because the property is classified as Gayalu that too in the year 1932, the authorities cannot include the property in the prohibited properties list. 6. Heard Sri M.P.V.N.V.Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader. 7. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted arguments in tune with their pleadings. 8. As per the endorsement of the District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru dated 18.01.2019 vide Roc.No.D1/e-1256234/2018 impugned in this RC,J W.P.No.9817 of 2021 6 writ petition by way of amending the prayer, it is evident that the petitioner did not submit any representation as directed by this Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by her vide W.P.No.38927 of 2017. The said contention of non-submission of representation is also reiterated in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no.4. The petitioner, though filed reply affidavit, did not deny the said contention of the authorities. 9. It is mentioned in the impugned endorsement that the petitioner failed produce any documents stating as to how the property registered as Gayalu in the printed R.S.R. dated 05.11.1932 was devolved on Mohammad KhaduBeebi from whom the mother of vendors of the petitioner said to have purchased the property. Whereas the petitioner claims that it is clearly mentioned in the link document No.947/1955, dated 24.09.1955 that the subject property was assigned to the vendee under the said document. The endorsement would further indicate that as per the information furnished by Sub Registrar, Chintalapudi through his letter dated 22.10.2018 to the District Collector, no transactions took place from the year 1932 to 1954. 10. The issue involved in this writ petition involves so many disputes questions of fact. Further, the contention of the District Collector that the petitioner did not submit any representation for deletion off her property from the list of prohibited properties remained unrebutted. It is also the contention RC,J W.P.No.9817 of 2021 7 of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aspects that the land assigned prior to 1954 cannot be included in the prohibited list, since the pattas do not contain any non-alienation condition and further since the property was purchased by vendor of mother of vendors of the petitioner in the year 1955, the government cannot claim any right over the property after lapse of thirty (30) years therefrom i.e. to say after 1985; were not considered by the District Collector. 11. 11. Be that as it may, since the petitioner did not comply with the direction given by this Court vide orders passed in W.P.No.38927 of 2017 and as the petitioner failed to produce documents before the authority, she cannot find fault with the order impugned and further as the issue involved in this writ petition is culmination of so many disputed facts, this Court while exercising jurisdiction cannot go into those aspects that too with the insufficient material available on record. Therefore, this writ petition lacks merits and the same deserves dismissal. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a detailed representation to the Committee constituted for dealing with the issues relating to deletion of properties which were included under Section 22(1) of the Registration Act raising all the grounds that are raised in this writ petition by duly enclosing the documents in support RC,J W.P.No.9817 of 2021 8 of her contentions. On such submission of representation, the same shall be disposed of answering all the points raised therein, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, not later than three (03) months from the date of receipt of representation. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR