::1:: APHC010482882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 24642/2025 Between: 1. K PARTHA SARATHI REDDY, S/O. K. PEERA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. NO. 4-32/A, GANGAMAMBAPURAM, PRASANNAVENKATESWARAPURAM, BALIJAPALLI POST, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, TIRUPATI (CHITTOOR) DISTRICT. 2. M. CHANDRA MOULI REDDY,, S/O. M. VENKATARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. GANGIREDDIPALLI VILLAGE AND POST RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. SMT. P. KANYA KUMARI,, W/O. P. KALADHAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 9-15, KOTHAPETA, VAYALPADU VILLAGE AND POST, VAYALPADU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. K. MUNI REDDY,, S/O. LATE K. RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 4-32, GANGAMAMBAPURAM VILLAGE, PV PURAM POST, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ::2:: 5. SMT. K. SUGUNAVATHI,, W/O. K. MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 4-32, GANGAMAMBAPURAM VILLAGE, PV PURAM POST, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 6. S. SRIDHAR RAJU,, S/O. SANGARAJU VENKATA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 7-99/1, PADMAVATHIPURAM, TIRUCHANURU ROAD, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 7. SMT. K. YASWANTHI,, W/O. C. VAMSI KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 4-32, GANGAMAMBAPURAM VILLAGE, PV PURAM POST, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 8. R. SURESH KUMAR REDDY,, S/O. R. PRATHAP REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 5/27, KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, LAKKIREDDYPALLI POST, LAKKIREDDIPALLI MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI (CHITTOOR) DISTRICT AT TIRUPATI 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI (CHITTOOR) DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATI REVENUE DIVISION, TIRUPATI (CHITTOOR) DISTRICT. ::3:: 5. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 6. THE SUBREGISTRAR, RENIGUNTA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order vide Rc.E2/e-42267/2025, dated 31.05.2025 and consequential action of the 6th respondent in executing the cancellation of the Registered Documents No. 13805, 13809, 14348, 14349, 14352, 14353, 14354, 14355. 14356, 14357, 14358, 14359, 14360, 14363, 14364, 14365 and 14366 of 2024 and registering the same by the 7th Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play apart from being in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and runs contrary to the entries made in the Revenue Records and consequently set aside the same and pass such pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G M SWAMULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS ::4:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.24642 of 2025 This Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners acquired the subject properties through registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos. 13805, 13809, 14348, 14349, 14352, 14353, 14354, 14355. 14356, 14357, 14358, 14359, 14360, 14363, 14364, 14365 and 14366 of 2024. Pursuant to the acquisition by way of purchase they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. While so, the 2nd respondent herein issued impugned proceedings dated 31.05.2025 reiterating that the subject property is in prohibited properties list under Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short “Act, 1908”). While so, while enlisting the subject properties under the list of prohibited properties it is further observed that the registered sale deeds, ::5:: which were executed in favour of the petitioners are to be cancelled on the ground that the petitioners got the registration fraudulently against Government land. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proposed cancellation of registered sale deeds which were already executed cannot be done unilaterally without following due procedure as contemplated. 3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader furnished a copy of amendment of Section 77-A of the Registration Act along with written instructions dated 12.09.2025 furnished by the 2nd Respondent which reads thus: “77-A: Cancellation of registered documents in certain cases:- (1) The Registrar, either suo motto or on a complaint received from any person, is of the opinion, that registration of a document is made in contravention of Section 22-A of Section 22-B or Section 22-C, shall issue a notice to the executants and all the parties to the document and parties to subsequent documents, if any, and all other persons who in the opinion of the Registrar, may be affected by the cancellation of the document, to show cause as to why the registration of the document shall not be cancelled. On consideration of reply, if any received thereof, the Registrar may cause the material facts to be put up a committee, headed by the District Collector as defined in the rules thereof, within a specific time frame, to cancel the registration of the document and cause to enter such cancellation in the relevant books and indexes. (2) The power under sub-section (1) may also be exercised by the Inspector General of Registration.” Learned Government Pleader contended that in certain occasions, the Registrar is empowered for cancellation if such ::6:: registration is taken place in contravention of Section 22-A of Section 22-B or Section 22-C after providing personal hearing to all parties to the document. Moreover, even though the subject lands are inam lands and classified as “River Poramboke” since the subject lands falls U/s 2-A of A.P. Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryothwari) Act, 1956 and the same was published in Official Gazette on 03.09.1994, no patta can be granted in respect of land to an extent of Ac.436.38 cents in Sy.No.479 situated at Tiruchanur Village. It is further stated that the subject lands were enlisted in prohibited properties list under Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Act, 1908 in view of the proceeding of the 2nd respondent dated 23.10.2019 and the same were notified and mutated in the revenue records as Notional Khata by way of proceedings dated 12.08.2016. Even though the subject lands are objectionable lands for alienation or for granting patta, the petitioners herein got registered erroneously in their favour contrary to the nature of the land. As such, the 2nd respondent has rightly issued proceedings for cancellation of the sale deeds of the petitioners. 4. In view of facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition ::7:: directing the Respondents to follow due process of law as contemplated if they intend to execute any deed of cancellation in respect of the sale deeds /title deeds of the petitioners as stated above. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 12.09.2025 krk ::8:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.24642 of 2025 12.09.2025 krk 81