APHC010629832018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3559] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL NO: 1133/2018 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal Preferred against the Order dated 23.1.2018, passed in W.P.No.40815/2017. Between: 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE COLLECTOR, KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, RAJAMPET, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, RAJAMPET, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. N SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/O N. PEDDI READY, AGED 57 YEARS, NUNEVARIPALLI ROAD, RAJAMPETA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. N CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, S/O N. SUBBA REDDY, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O KONDLOPALLI VILLAGE, RAJAMPETA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 2 condone the delay of 179 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the dated 23.1.2018 in W.P.No.40815/2017 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 suspend the order dated 23.01.2018 made in W.P.No.40815/2017, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N NIYATHA 3 The Court made the following Judgement: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The 1st respondent herein had purchased Ac.0.75 cents of land in Survey No.1215/2 of M.G.Puram Village, Tallapaka Revenue Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District under registered deed of sale, dated 11.02.2013 registered as document No.1783 of 2013. At the stage of purchase of the property, the registering authorities had refused to register the said document on the ground that the land was categorized as dotted land in the resurvey register. Aggrieved by the refusal to registrer the documents, the vendors of the 1st respondent had moved W.P.No.32 of 2013 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The learned single Judge of the erstwhile High Court, by order dated 03.01.2013, had directed the concerned Sub-Registrar to receive the documents presented by the vendors without any regard to the RSR entries and process the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. The learned single Judge has also observed that if the 4th respondent has any legally sustainable reasons, other than the entries in RSR, for refusing to register the documents, he shall pass an order assigning reasons. Thereafter, the aforesaid deed of sale, dated 11.02.2013 came to be registered as document No.1783 of 2013. 2. Similarly, the 2nd respondent had purchased Ac.0.75 cents of land in Survey No.1215/1 and Ac.1.50 cents in Survey No.1215/3 of the same village by way of a deed of sale, dated 19.06.2014 registered as document No.2569 of 2014. The vendors of the 1st respondent, who were also petitioners in W.P.No.9153 of 2013 filed for the same relief. A learned single Judge, of the erstwhile High Court of A.P., by an order, dated 17.04.2013, had directed the respondents to receive and process the documents presented by the vendors of the 1st respondent. In that view of the matter, the deed of sale came to be registered in favour of the 2nd respondent. After holding the said land for some time, the 2nd respondent sought to sell the land and was informed by the registering authorities that the document of sale would not be registered. Aggrieved by this refusal to register, the respondents approached the 4 erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Andhra Pradesh and for the State of Telangana by way of W.P.No.40815 of 2017. This writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge, by order dated 23.01.2018, with a direction to the Sub-Registrar to receive and process the documents presented by the vendors of the respondents, without reference to the claim of the Government. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the State and its officials are in appeal before us, by way of the present appeal. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would contend that the order of the learned single Judge is required to be set aside, in view of the Full Bench judgment of the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad, in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary vs. State of A.P.1, and the subsequent enactment of the dotted lands in the Andhra Pradesh Dotted Lands (Updation in Re-Settlement Register) Act, 2017. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would also contend that these are assigned lands inasmuch as the revenue authorities, while forwarding proposals for the inclusion in the prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, had included all these lands with details of persons with whom those assignments are made. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, fairly states that he has no instructions and no knowledge on the basis of which, the revenue authorities are included those lands as assigned lands. Though, the contention of assignment has been raised in the grounds of appeal, the appellants have not chosen to file any material or record before this Court, demonstrating that those lands have been assigned to third parties or to the vendors of the respondents herein. In the absence of any such material, and in view of the earlier orders of this Court, where directions had been given for registration of 1 2016(1) ALT 550 (FB) 5 the land in favour of the respondents, it would not be available for the appellants to raise such a contention. 7. In the circumstances, and in view of the earlier orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.32 and 9153 of 2013, wherein directions had been given for registration of the documents of title in favour of the respondents, the necessity of approaching the authority or the committee constituted under Section 5 of the A.P. Assigned Lands Act would also not arise. We are of the view that such a course of action would have been available if no finding of any nature has been given in the earlier around of litigation by this Court. However, since such directions have already been given by way of orders in the year 2013, it would not be appropriate to relegate the parties to a committee which would sit in appeal over the direction given by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2013. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order, dated 23.01.2018, passed in W.P.No.40815 of 2017 of the learned single Judge. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTHA, J Date: 04.11.2025 SPP 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL No.1133 of 2018 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 04.11.2025 SPP