APHC010239222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12300/2025 Between: Savana Jaya Bala Kishore, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue an order or direction or writ. more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent vide R.Dis. No. E3/496/2023, dated 11.04.2025 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for deletion of petitioner's property in an extent of Ac.2.97 cents in Sy.No 121/2 of Srirangarajapalem (S R Palem). Pullampet Mandal. Annamayya District from the list of prohibited properties D/Sec 22-A (1) (e) of Registration Act, 1908 as highly arbitrary, illegal, non application of mind, null and void and against norms of public policy and principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights apart from Article 300-A of Constitution of India and also contrary 2 to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to delete the above said land of the petitioner from the list of prohibited properties and pass such other order. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject agricultural landed property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.97 cents in Sy. No.121/2, situated at Sriramgarajapalem Village of Pullampeta Mandal, Annamayya District and having acquired the subject property from his father through a Gift Settlement Deed vide Document No.2920/2011, dated 26.07.2011. The petitioner was issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the said land, and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. While intending to sell the subject property, the petitioner came to know that the subject property was recorded in the Prohibitory List under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject land is an assigned land and was acquired by the petitioner through a public auction conducted by the Special Cadre Deputy Registrar-cum-Officer on Special Duty, District Cooperative Central Bank (DCCB). He further submits that the petitioner submitted a representation requesting for deletion of the subject property from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908, being the purchaser in a public auction conducted by the DCCB, which was the mortgagee of the said land. However, the 2nd respondent rejected the petitioner’s claim vide proceedings dated 11.04.2025, on the following ground as follows:- 3 “As per G.O.Ms.No.255 Food and Agriculture (Co-op.VI) Department, dated 19.06.1997, the time of validation for conducting of public auction in respect of Assigned Lands allowed up to 18.06.1999 only and no further extension beyond is received from the government. In the instant case seller has purchased the property through public auction by the DCC Bank, Kadapa in the year 2002 as seen from the Form-10 i.e., certificate of sale issued under Sub-rule 14 (V) of Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh COOP Societies rules 1964 in the E.P.No.983/2000-2001”. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a similar rejection was considered by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Appeal No.577 of 2021, wherein the Court quashed the rejection and directed deletion of the land from the prohibited list. The Court held as follows:- “In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to delete the petitioner's land an extent of Ac 3.62 cents situated in Sy.No.42-83 of Piler Revenue Village from the prohibited property list issued by the Revenue Authorities under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the 5th respondent. Independently, the petitioner shall submit the sale deed for registration before the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent shall receive the sale document and process the same for registration strictly in accordance with the provisions of Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act, 1908, without reference to the prohibited property list maintained under 4 Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and release the same as per law. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of submission of the document by the petitioner." 5. In view of the same, the impugned order of rejection issued by the 2nd respondent, dated 11.04.2025, is liable to be set aside, and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim in light of the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court. 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, submits that the subject property mentioned under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908, relates to assigned lands that were mortgaged to banks by the assignees for development purposes. If any auction was conducted in respect of such property, the auction purchaser is entitled to rights over the property, and the 2nd respondent will consider the same in view of the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. It is observed that in the present case, the petitioner, being the auction purchaser pursuant to the auction conducted by the mortgagee bank, 5 cannot be denied rights merely on the ground that the land was originally assigned, since the nature of the land was altered once it was mortgaged in favour of the mortgagee bank. The 2nd respondent failed to consider this aspect. In view of the settled proposition of law, as discussed above, once the assigned land is mortgaged in favour of a scheduled bank and subsequently sold in a public auction conducted by the bank, the nature of the land changed, and the purchaser is entitled to have the transaction recognized. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to have his representation for deletion of the subject land from the prohibitory list duly considered. Therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, dated 11.04.2025, are hereby set aside. The 2nd respondent is further directed to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 07.05.2025 kkllkk 6 296 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:12300 of 2025 07.05.2025 kkllkk 7