1 APHC010072502010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 17276/2010 Between: N.srinivasa Rao, Tirupati & Another and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of A P Endowments 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T BALAJI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) 3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue a writ order or direction more preferably one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings vide Rc No N1/34576/2007 dated 11.12.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent and the endorsement dated 23.4.2010 made by the 4th respondent Annexure- II Certificate of Market valuation, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India by setting aside the same and consequently direct the 4th respondent 2 herein to receive admit and register the sale deed that would be presented by the petitioners herein alienating an extent of 842.4 sq yards situated at Sy No 82 Tirupathi Town Chittoor District and pass 2.Brief facts of the case are that originally the land admeasuring Ac.2.37 cents situated in Sy. No. 82 of Tirupati Town, Chittoor District belonged to one by name K. Narayana Swamy Chetty. He was given a saswathapatta in the year 1905. Basing on the said saswathapatta i.e. permanent patta, he alienated the property to one Sri Hukum Kader Saheb. In the year 1927, wife of Sri Hukum Kader Saheb by name Smt. Roshan Bee and his son by name Noor Mohamed Saheb executed a registered sale deed bearing document No. 830/1927 in favour of his daughter Smt. Abdul Kati Jabi, W/o. K. Abdul Rajak Saheb. It is stated that after the purchase made in terms of the said document, the said purchasers namely Abdul Kati Jabi & others respectively in turn have executed a registered relinquishment deed in the year 1933 vide document No. 265/1933. All the said individuals have in turn alienated an extent of Ac. 5.07 cents to the grandfather of the petitioners herein by name Sri N. Srinivasa Rao through a registered sale deed bearing document No. 152/1948. During the life time of petitioner’s grandfather Sri N. Srinivas Rao, he has alienated an extent of almost 50 cents out of the total extent of Ac.5.07 cents. After the demise of his grandfather, the petitioner’s father namely Sri N. C. Rao has also alienated certain lands. It is stated that during the lifetime of petitioner’s father, in respect of the land i.e., 842.4 sq. yards, has constructed a school with the permission of the local authorities. The said school has been running for the past 26 years. Even now, taxes in respect of the properties 3 which is subject matter of the lis is paid by the petitioners herein without any delay. While the matter stood thus, a letter was addressed by the Commissioner of Endowments to the Sub-Registrar, Tirupathi vide letter No. Rc.No.N1/34576/2007 dated 11.12.2008 states that the particulars of immoveable properties presuming to be belonging to Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions under Section 22-(A) (1) (c) of Registration Act, as amended under Act of 2007, i.e. Act No. 19/2007. It is pertinent to mention that Section 22A of the said Act was introduced by an amendment vide Act No.4 of 1999. The said legislative amendment was akin to a legislative amendment made in the State of Rajasthan. The vires of the Section 22A of the Act was assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has declared Section 22A of the Act as ultra vires. Subsequently, the State of Andhra Pradesh has once again amended the Section by virtue of the Amendment Act, 2007. Even the said amendment is subject matter of challenge in several writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court which have been admitted and pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Court. It is stated that under Section 22A of the Registration Act, unless and until, the State Government issues a notification which necessarily shall be published in the official gazette, the Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain any other request made. In fact, this Hon'ble Court in number of writ petitions has held that letters by statutory authorities to the Sub-Registrar would be a fraud on the power of the authority and this Hon'ble Court interfered with such letters and allowed the writ petitions. In the instant case, the petitioners are assailing 4 the correctness of the letter in Rc. No. N1/34576/2007 dated 11.12.2008 addressed by the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent herein before this Hon'ble Court as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. While denying the allegations made in the petition stated that, as per the Town Survey Field Register of Municipal Corporation, Tirupathi and Revenue Records, the land measuring Ac.5-33 cents in T.S.No.74 and the land measuring Ac.5-17 cents in Sy.No.82 stands registered in the name of Dharmakartha, Sri Kulasekharatalvaar Temple in the premises of Sri Govinda Raja Swamy Temple. Therefore, it is denied that the land belongs to Sri K.Narayanaswamy Chetty. It is stated that Sri Kulasekharatalvaar Temple is a sub-Temple in Sri Govinda Raja Swamy Temple. As per the Revenue Records the subject land is an Inam Land given to the Dharmakartha of Sri Kulasekharatalvaar Temple for specific service and its maintenance. It is further stated that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chittoor had submitted proposals informing that the land in T.S.No.74 measuring an extent of Ac.5-33 cents and land measuring Ac.5-17 cents in Sy.No.82 are endowed property of subject Temple and requested to prohibit the same for registration U/Sec.22A (I) (C) of the Registration Act. Basing on the report of Assistant Commissioner, Chittoor, the land measuring Ac.5-33 cents in T.S.No.74 and land measuring Ac.5-17 cents in Sy.No.82 was 5 prohibited for Registration by the Commissioner who is competent authority to do the same. It is further stated that the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad vide D.O.Lr.No.G1/19131/2005, dated 24.09.2007 has informed that the Government have brought amendment to Sec.22-A which prohibits registration of certain documents and requested the Commissioner of Endowments to furnish the list of properties owned by Religious and Charitable Endowments falls under purview of A.P.C. & H.R.I. and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 to the Registering Officers in the State. Accordingly, a list of properties owned by Charitable and Religious Institutions in the State were obtained from the concerned Assistant Commissioners of the District in Endowments Department and furnished the same to the concerned Sub-Registrars with a request not to entertain any registration of these properties. It is further stated that the communication dated 19.04.2010 addressed by the Commissioner of the Endowments Department of the State therefore proceeds on complete misconception and misunderstanding of the scope of the above provisions. In the event the Religious / Charitable / Endowment / Wakf institution seeks to assert any right over a property, prohibition as to registration of documents relating to such property can operate only if a notification is issued under Section 22-A (2) of the Act of 1908 in connection with Section 22-A (1) (e) thereof. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 9.10.2012 in Writ Appeal No.500 of 2012 in a case of T.Kalpana and another vs. the Joint 6 Sub Registrar-I, Kadapa had dismissed the appeal. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Endowments, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Government Pleader for Registration & Stamps appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents made in the petition, argued that, the subject property has been in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and their ancestors for more than 6 decades. After demise of their father, the petitioners herein wanted to alienate the property and therefore applied for Valuation of the property. The 4th respondent herein refused to register property and passed the impugned order duly endorsing the annexure-II of the valuation certificate, which is highly illegal and arbitrary, 6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed a catena of decisions (i) In a case reported in P. Srinivasulu and others v. Sub Registrar, Renigunta, Chittoor District and others1, wherein High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad was held that In the present case, lands of Trust were sold to father of 1 petitioner as early as in the years 1981, 1983 and 1985- No steps taken all these years to nullify such sale deeds or to take back possession of Trust land from purchaser by resorting to provisions of Endowments Act - Respondents cannot, therefore, claim that those lands still continue to be the properties of 5th respondent-trust and prevent transfer of the subject land in favour of petitioners 2 to 5 Complicated questions of title and possession cannot be gone into by respondents by preventing transfer of lands under Section 22-A of the Act - The claim of a bona fide purchaser of trust land which was sold about 31 years back cannot be deprived by preventing 12013(1) ALT 345 7 transfer of such land by making communications to the registering authorities on the alleged ground that such sales were effected without prior approval of Commissioner of Endowments No basis or authority for respondents 3 and 5 to address letters to 1st respondent for prohibiting transfer of subject land - Writ petition, therefore, allowed with direction to 1st respondent to receive the sale deeds presented by 1st petitioner with regard to subject land and consider the same for registration without reference to letters of respondents 3 and 5 and in accordance with provisions of Registration Act and Stamp Act.” (ii) In a case of Pasuparthi Jayaram and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and others2, wherein it was held that : …Under the said provision, only the list of those designated persons who can execute documents on behalf of those institutions be sent and not a list of properties belonging to such institutions Communication of list of properties by Commissioner of Endowments is a misconception of scope of the provision Prohibition as to registration of documents relating to properties of such institutions can operate only if a notification is issued under Section 22-A (2) of the Act in connection with Section 22-A (1) (e) thereof In the absence of such notification, Endowments Department cannot communicate a list of properties allegedly owned by religious institutions by way of a letter and trae its power to Section 22-A (1)(c ) of the Act. The commissioner Endowments, is without jurisdiction and therefore unsustainable – it is set aside” (iii) In another case reported in AamudalapalliVenkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Amaravathi, Guntur District and others3, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that: “Unless there is a statutory notification prohibiting the registration of the land notified under Section 22(A)(1) of the Registration Act, in accordance with law, there cannot be a restriction on the sale of the land by the land owner. Registration of a document is a public notice, it cannot create valid title than that of his vendor registration of the document would not come in the way of Government, to assert its title to the property by availing appropriate remedy in law.” 22013 (4) ALT 541 32019(4) ALT 104 (AP) 8 6. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the above decisions, requests this Court to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings. 7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents also while reiterating the contents made in the counter denied the contents made by the petitioners. He further submits that there is no illegality, arbitrariness in passing the impugned orders, as the lands are shown in the prohibitory property list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Since the properties mentioned above were furnished to Sub Registrar, Tirupati informing that these properties are endowed properties belonging to Sri Kulasekharatalvaar Temple with a request to not to entertain the registration of the properties. Hence the Sub Registrar, Tirupati denied the registration of these properties. 8. In this connection, learned Government Pleader also relied upon the case of Sri P.Srinivasulu(supra 1) and held as follows: "From a careful perusal, Section 22-A of the Registration Act a clear distinction is drawn between sub-section (1) (c) and sub-section (1) (e) of Section 22-A. The class of document that are prohibited for registration under Section 22-A (I) (C) of the Registration Act is with regard to immovable property owned by the Government, Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the Act 30 of 1987 of Wakfs falling under Wakts Act. 1995. To prohibit registration of such class of documents, no notification is required to be issued by the Government. Focal Bodies. Educational, Cultural and Religious Institutions, notification ct. A comprehensive reading of the Registration Act, it is amply clear that with regard to lands owned by the Government and Religious Institutions straight away they are prohibited for registration and with regard to lands where there is avowed or accrued interests of Central or State Government or Local Bodies, Cultural or Religious Institutions, notification is contemplated under sub-section (1) (e) of Section 22-A of Registration Act." (ii) And also relied upon the case of Pasuparthi(supra 2), wherein the Hon'ble High Court had held that: 9 "A bare reading of the above provision makes it clear that the prohibition contemplated by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section22-A of the Act of 1908 relates to the status of the executant of the document relating to properties owned by Religious/Charitable/Endowments/Wakf institutions. Registration of documents executed by other than those statutorily empowered to do so in respect of such properties is prohibited thereunder. The said provision pre-supposes the title of the institution over the land and merely prohibits registration of documents executed by those without authority. Therefore, the only list that could be communicated under this provision would be a the list of those designated persons who have power and authority to execute documents on behalf of the Religious / Charitable / Endowment/Wakf institutions and not a list of the properties belonging to such Institutions". In the absence of a notification under Section 22-A (2),it is not open to the Endowments Department to communicate a list of properties allegedly owned by religious institutions by way of a letter and trace the power to do so to Section 22-A (I) (C) of the Act of 1908". 9. On a perusal of the above decision, it is observed that, the Registration Department did not come to a conclusion whether the properties mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) are automatically prohibited from registration as and when such properties are brought to the notice of the Registration Authority by the concerned department / authority (or) a specific notification is required to be issued the matter. 10. Perused the material on record. 11. As per Section 87 of the A.P.C. & H.R.I. and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 the A.P. Endowment Tribunal is competent to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question whether any property is an endowment property. It is for the purchasers to get the title declared by a Competent forum or Court and in particular under Section 87 (1) before A.P. Endowments Tribunal. The respondent herein rightly acted in prohibiting the registration of documents of property in Sy.No.74 measuring Ac.5-33 cents and in Sy.No.82 measuring Ac.5-17 cents as the same belonging to Sri Kulasekharatalvaar 10 Temple in the premises of Sri Govindarajula Swamy Temple, Tirupathi as per Revenue Records. 12. As seen from the impugned proceedings, wherein it is mentioned as under: “ I am hereby forwarding particulars of immovable properties relating to Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution, Endowments Institutions in your Registration Sub-District in proforma Under Section 22-(A) (1) (c) of Registration A.P. Amendments) Act 2007 i.e., Act No. 19/2007 for taking necessary action of prohibition of registration as the said lands are required for the maintenance of the Charitable and Religious Institutions. These enlisted immovable properties cannot be registered without the specific permission of the commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad.” 13. It is further observed that, in pursuance of the letter dated 11.12.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent, addressed a letter to the 4th respondent for considering the case of the petitioners, but they have made an endorsement dated 23.4.2010, wherein it was stated that the above TS No. is prohibited from registration as it is endowments land as per list furnished by the Commissioner, Endowments Department. 14. The purpose and object of newly amended provision under Section 22-A, into the Registration Act, is to prevent transfer of land belonging to Government and Religious Institutions. At the same time, whenever there is a bona fide claim with regard to title and possession by any third party, such claim cannot be curtailed merely on the ground that such land belongs to either Government or Religious Institutions. The complicated questions with regard to title and possession cannot be gone into by the respondents by preventing transfer of lands in exercise of the power under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. When there is a bona fide claim by a private person in respect of immovable property of the Government on Religious Institution or 11 any Local Body covered by Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act, it is for such Government, Religious Institution of Local Body to approach competent forum or Court to establish their right. But the claim of the bona fide purchaser cannot be deprived of, by preventing transfer of lands making communications to the Registering Authorities. It is also to be noticed that the sale deeds were executed as early as in 1981, 1983 and 1985 and since last 31 years the father of the first petitioner and after his death the first petitioner are in continuous possession of the subject land. At this point of time, respondents cannot create any cloud on the title of the first petitioner either by disputing the validity of the resolution authorizing the Life Trustee to execute sale deeds or on the ground that such sales were affected without prior approval of the Commissioner of Endowments. In the absence of a notification under Section 22-A(2), it is not open to the Endowments Department to communicate a list of properties allegedly owned by religious institutions by way of a letter and trace the power to do so to Section 22-A(1)(c ) of the Act of 1908. 15. This Court has already held vide order dated 27.02.2009 in W.P.No.11119 and 11203 of 2008 that the registering authority cannot deny a document on the alleged ground that the building was constructed on a Government land based on some entries in revenue records when there is no factual basis. If really, had the land been Government land, the respondents could have made out the facts nor they made any attempts earlier during the past 6 decades as the property was in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and their ancestors. 12 16. In view of the above discussion, it is observed that, the land, by no stretch of imagination, could be a Government land and in respect the existing building, there was already sanction accorded by the local authority and the building is in existence for more than 6 decades. Hence this Court is of the view that the respondents without appreciation of facts, mechanically issued the endorsement, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub- Registrar, Tirupati-4th respondent to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioners in respect of the their lands to an extent of 842.4 sq yards situated in Sy No.82, Tirupati town, Chittoor District, without reference to the said endorsement. In the event the documents presented are found to fulfill the requirements of the Registration Act 1908 and the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, the Sub Registrar, Tirupati shall complete the registration formalities and release the documents in accordance with the due procedure. 18. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : -04-2025 Gvl 13 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITON No.17276 of 2010 Date : 10 04.2025 Gvl