IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAyA WRIT PETITION NO: 15557 OF 2020^ Between: ^ri Vemuru Jaganadha Rao, S/o. Late Nageswara Rao, aged about 58 years, R/o. Flat No.201, WR Towers, Pinamaneni Teacher's Colony Vijayawada. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District. 3, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ankapally, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. 5. The Sub Registrar, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District. (Cause title is amended as per the Court’s order dated23.01.2025 in lA No.2 of 2020 ) ...RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a Writ, Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent authorities is arbitrarily illegal null and void, against the principals of natural justice and violative of Article 300-A of the constitution of India in 1)Not deleting the land admeasuring an extent of AC. 03. 43 cents situated in Sy.No.332, at Koduru village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakapatnam District from the prohibited list U/S 22A of the Registration Act. 2)To direct the w respondent authorities 2 to 4 to change the web records in the name of the petitioner. 3)To direct the 5th respondent to register the documents pertaining to the land belong to the petitioner, admeasuring an extent of AC, 03.' 43 cents situated in Sy.No.332, at Koduru village, Anakapalli mandal, Visakapatnam District. 4)Not to evict the petitioner without following due process of law. (Prayer is amended as the Court’s order dated 23.01.2025 in lA No.03 of 2020 in Writ Petition and affidavit) lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners land including harvesting of crop in the land admeasuring an extent of AC. 03.43 cents situated in Sy.No.332, at Koduru village] Anakapalli Mandal, Visakapatnam District, without following due process of law. (Prayer is amended as the Court’s order dated 23.01.2025 in lA No.03 of 2020) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPAT^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010236072020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 15557/2020 Between: Sri VemuruJaganadha Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER;- Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. Challenging the action of the respondents in not deleting the subject land in an extent of Ac.3.43 cents situated in Sy.No.322, Koduru Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22 A of the Registration Act (for short “the Act”), 1908, the present writ petition is filed. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that his father purchased the subject property from his vendor one Yadagiri Tammanna vide registered 2 document number 2786/1984 dated 25.06.1984. It is contended that the petitioner's father’s vendor had purchased the subject property vide registered sale deed, bearing document No. 1823/1944. After his life time, the petitioner has succeeded to the property and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. It is stated though the petitioner’s father has purchased the property, the name of the original pattadar Yadagiri Tammanna stood continued in the revenue records, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the encumbrance certificate issued by the office of the Sub-Registrar contains the name of petitioner’s father as claimant, tt is contended that since the date of the purchase of the land, there has been occupation and cultivation of the land. When the petitioner has proposed to sell the subject land, it has come to his knowledge that the land is enlisted in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22 A of the Act. The 5**^ respondent filed counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and Others Vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and Others has forwarded the list of prohibited properties under Section 22 A of the Act containing the subject property. Since the subject properties are enlisted in the list of prohibited properties, the Registering Authorities are justified in refusing to register the document. It is further contended that there is a redressal mechanism under Section 22 A (4) of the Act, before the Committees to be constituted by respective State 4. 3 Governments, the petitioner can avail the redressal mechanism and seek deletion of the property from the list of prohibited properties. Considered the rival submissions. 5. A perusal of the prohibited list forwarded by the District Collector, 6. the “owner” of the subject property is shown as “Government” and the reasons for prohibition as “Vagu”. In RSR, both the descriptions are found to be Anadeena Punja” and “Gayalu”. The different from one another, viz.. petitioner contends that the word “Gayalu” is overwritten fraudulently. The Full Bench Decision of this Court in the case of Vinjamuri 7. Rajagopala Chary and Others Vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and Others^ has laid down that the appropriate authority, while forwarding the list, under Section 22 A (1) (a) of the Act, should specify the reasons for prohibiting the enlisted properties from registration and the relevant statute under which the transfer is prohibited. In the present case, the District Collector, while forwarding the list of the prohibited properties, did not mention the reasons for prohibition and the relevant statute under which the transactions are prohibited. Further, having regard to the fact that the vendor of the 8. petitioner’s father has purchased the subject property vide registered sale deed 1944, which has not been disputed by the respondent authorities, in view of the same, even assuming that the lands are assigned lands that could only be much prior to 1940s. Therefore, in view of G.O.Ms.No.575 dated (2016) 2 ALD 236 (FB) 16.11.2018, under which the Government has ordered for deletion of government lands assigned before 1954 from the list of prohibited properties and having regard to the relevant entries in the revenue records, which discloses the name of the petitioner’s father’s vendor as pattadar, the proceedings of the District Collector, in so far as it relates to the subject property in the writ petition, are set aside. The respondents are directed to delete the subject property from the purview of the list of prohibited properties under Section 22 A of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order 9. as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VIJAYA BABU assistant registrar sf' //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, 'Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, 'Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ankapally, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. 5; The Sub Registrar, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District. 6:^ One CC to Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, Advocate [OPUC] 7^ Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CCs to GP for Stamps and Registration, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies. ssb T HIGH COURT y': hi',: .V vt.-- "i; 0ATED:23/O1/2O25 ORDER WP.No.15557of 2020 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS