APHC010499802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 26098 of 2025 Between: 1. NANDHIVADA NAGA NARASIMHA VENU GOPAL,, S/O. LATE RAMA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 21-134, REVENUE COLONY, NANDHI GAMA, N.T.R. DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DISTRICT). 2. NANDHIVADA NAGA VENKATA NARASIMHA PRABHU SANKAR, S/O. LATE RAMA KRISHNA, AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 21-134/1, REVENUE COLONY, NANDHI GAMA, N.T.R. DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP.BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. A.P. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, N.T.R.DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, NANDHI GAMA, NANDHI GAMA MANDAL, N.T.R.DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. RAYALA RAMA RAO, S/O. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 1-2, TUNIKAPADU ROAD, RAJAVARARM, PENUGOLANU MANDAL, N.T.R.DISTRICT, A.P. 5. THE ASSISTANCE ENGINEER, APCPDCL, NANDIGAMA, N.T.R.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 writ of Mandamus to the 2nd respondent to 2 declare the sale deed vide document No.7613/2021, dated 24.12.2021 on the file of the 3rd respondent as null and void since the transaction was hit by Sub-Section (2) (3) of Section 3 of A.P. Assigned (POT) Act, 1977 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Y V SRINIVASAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue writ of Mandamus to the 2nd respondent to declare the sale deed vide document No.7613/2021, dated 24.12.2021 on the file of the 3rd respondent as null and void since the transaction was hit by Sub-Section (2) (3) of Section 3 of A.P. Assigned (POT) Act, 1977 in the interest of justice and pass such other orders…” 2. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of mandamus to declare the sale deed vide document No.7613/2021 dated 24.12.2021 on the file of the 3rd respondent as null and void since the transaction was hit by sub- sections (2) & (3) of Section 3 of A.P. Assigned (POT) Act, 1977, in the interest of justice. 3. It is the pleading of the writ petitioners’ houses bearing Door Nos.21-134/1, 21-134 situated in an extent of 0.04½ cents (217 Sq.yards) of Nandigama of N.T.R. District, which is 8 rooms with two portions house and the said site was assigned to the grandfather, who is revenue employee, by the Revenue Department. As the writ petitioners needed amount to their family necessities and business purpose, sold the said dwelling houses to the 4th respondent Rayala Rama Rao, the sale consideration is an amount of Rs.3.00 Crores and executed sale deed on 24.12.2021 vide document No.7613/2021 at office of 3rd respondent, i.e., The Sub-Registrar, Nandigama. 4. The petitioners submit that out of the sale consideration of Rs.3.00 Crores, the 4th respondent paid only an amount of 4 Rs.21,38,000/- and he promised that the balance sale consideration will be paid in three months but he failed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,78,62,000/- indeed the 4th respondent is taking steps to sell the house to third parties and the petitioners are in the possession of the houses and the sale is contrary to sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned (POT) Act ,1977, hence prayed to direct the 3rd respondent to keep the sale deed executed by the writ petitioners, vide document No.7613/2021 dated 24.12.2021 in abeyance. 5. The petitioners are seeking a relief to put the sale deed executed vide document No.7613/2021 dated 24.12.2021 in abeyance on the ground that the 4th respondent did not pay the sale balance consideration and therefore, the sale could not be completed. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kaliaperumal Vs. Rajagopal & Anr, reported (2009)4 SCC 193, while considering the provision of Section 54 of the T.P. Act held as under:- “It is now well settled that payment of entire price is not a condition precedent for completion of the sale by passing of title, as Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines “sale” as “a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised”. If the intention of parties was that title should pass on execution and registration, title would pass to the purchaser even if the sale price or part thereof is not paid. In the event of non-payment of price (or balance price as the case may be) thereafter, the remedy of the vendor is only to sue for the balance price. He 5 cannot avoid the sale. He is, however, entitled to a charge upon the property for the unpaid part of the sale price where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the entire price, under Section 55(4)(b) of the Act.” 7. The four paragraphs below are borrowed from the Full Bench Judgment of the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Yanala Malleshwari and others Vs. Ananthula Sayamma and others reported in 2006(6) ALT 523. 8. If the vendee avoids the sale transaction, the remedy is only to file a suit for cancellation of deed as contemplated under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. The Writ Petition is also opposed on the ground that the dispute in private law cannot be redressed in a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power of judicial review is not available, when there is an effective alternative remedy to the aggrieved person. The dispute relating to cancellation of sale deeds, gift deeds etc., are in the realm of private law and requires to be adjudicated only in common law proceedings, such as a suit under the Specific Relief Act 1963. 9. Apart from the limitation, whether the sale consideration is paid or due and what sale consideration is due are all disputed questions of facts. When granting redressal involves adjudication of disputed questions of facts, which require adducing of evidence by the parties, then also ordinarily an application for a judicial review is not accepted. 6 10. It is misnomer to assume that all statutory authorities like registering authority, always discharge public law functions. Some of the functions like registration of documents/instruments may be in exercise of statutory power but such functions may or may not strictly concern with public law. 11. Judicial review has its own limitations and all decisions of public bodies are not amenable to this public law power. Nor is it permissible for a reviewing Court to deal with matters which lack adjudicative disposition by reason of prerogative nature of the power exercised by the public authority or exclusive entrustment of powers to a specialized body of the State. As the legislative and executive wings are prohibited from usurping the judicial functions of the State, the judiciary is not expected to discharge legislative and executive functions. The exposition of the principles of judicial review by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions Vs. Minister for the Civil Service reported in (1985) AC 374 has attained the classical status of law of judicial review. While grouping the grounds of judicial review into three broad points, namely, illegality, irrationality and impropriety, the noble Lord observed. 12. The petitioners have sold the assigned land to the 4th unofficial respondent, despite there being a prohibition on alienation. On this ground also, the learned counsel seeks a direction to the respondents to keep the sale deed executed by the petitioners in abeyance, invoking Section 2 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), which envisages that: 7 (i) No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise. (ii) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provision of sub-section (1) of sub-section (2) [or sub-section (2-A)] [Inserted by Act No. 11 of 2019.] shall be deemed to be null and void. 13. In every sale deed, the vendor thereby declares that the schedule property is not government land, not assigned land, and is free from all encumbrances, including mortgage, lien, charge, or litigation, and the vendor has full right and title to sell the said property and if it found that the vendor is not the owner of the property, he will compensate to the vendee. 14. Having taken the pleading that the land is assigned land, petitioners have not filed assignment patta in support of the pleading in the Writ Petition or atleast have asserted the details of patta granted in favour of their grandfather. The intention of the writ petitioners are pellucid, as they sold the assigned land to the 4th respondent, vendee with full knowledge that it was inalienable, and after receiving consideration. The petitioners, in turn, took the defence that the land is assigned and therefore inalienable, in an attempt to circumvent the law and seek relief to keep the property in abeyance for the balance sale consideration. It is evident that the petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands. 8 15. The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar reported in 1995 (4) SCC 683, held that if a person approaches a Court of equity with the blameworthy conduct, for obtaining discretionary relief disentitles him for grant of such relief. 16. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, no costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 16.10.2025 siva 9 Reserved on 14.10.2025 Pronounced on 16.10.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.26098 of 2025 Date: 16.10.2025 siva