APHC010462162023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23945/2023 Between: 1. NITTA NAGA RAJU, S/O VENKATA RATNAM, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 4-4-75, DWARAKA NAGAR, B.D. COLONY, NEAR CHAITANYA BALASRI, WATER PLANT, TANGELLAMUDI VILLAGE, ELURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 4TH BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, ROOM NO.135, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT JOINT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, CHINTHALAPUDI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. BATTULA MANIKYAM, W/O KRUPADANAM, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O POLAVARAM VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, 2 NUJIVEEDU REVENUE DIVISION, ELURU DISTRICT, 521214. 7. BATTULA SURESH SURYAM, S/O KRUPADANAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O POLAVARAM VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, NUJIVEEDU REVENUE DIVISION, ELURU DISTRICT, 521214. 8. BATTULA RAMESH JANI, S/O KRUPADANAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O POLAVARAM VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, NUJIVEEDU REVENUE DIVISION, ELURU DISTRICT, 521214. 9. CHUNDRU SUJATHA, W/O RAJU (LATE) AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, BOYAGUDEM VILLAGE, CHINTHALAPUDI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT 10. CHUNDRU PAL STEPHEN, S/O RAJU (LATE), AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, BOYAGUDEM VILLAGE, CHINTHALAPUDI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT 534460. 11. CHUNDRU PETER STEPHEN RAJU, (LATE), AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, (BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SUNDRU SUJATHA), BOYAGUDEM VILLAGE, CHINTHALAPUDI MANDAL, ELURU 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 pass an order or a writ, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Endorsement ELR 20220411704 dated 19-05- 2022 as illegal and void and consequently set aside the same and also declare the inaction on the part of the respondents, especially the respondent No.5 Tahsildar in issuing pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the lands situated in an extent of 1.25 cents in Sy.No. 1514/2 in a total extent of Ac 1.59 cents and land in an extent of Ac 1.25 cents in Sy.No. 1514/4 of Chintalapudi Village, and Mandal, now Eluru District as illegal, arbitrary and void and also violative of Articles 14, 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to pass an order directing the respondents, particularly the Respondent No.5 Tahsildar to issue Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the lands mentioned above and also in respect of the land in an extent of 0.25 cents in a total extent of Ac 1.59 cents situated in Sy No. 1514/2 of Chintalapudi Village 3 purchased from the said Sathyanandam and his son Raju through a sale agreement dated 26.09.2002 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to pass an interim order suspending the Endorsement ELR 20220411704 dated 19-05-2022 while directing the respondents, particularly the respondent No.5 Tahsildar to issue Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the lands mentioned above in Sy. Nos. 1514/2 in an extent of 1.5 cents and in the Sy.No. 1514/4 in an extent of 1.25 cents of Chintalapudi Village, and Mandal, now Eluru District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. D BALAKRISHNAIAH The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.23945 OF 2023 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to pass an order or a writ, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Endorsement ELR 20220411704 dated 19-05-2022 as illegal and void and consequently set aside the same and also declare the inaction on the part of the respondents, especially the respondent No.5-Tahsildar in issuing pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the lands situated in an extent of 1.25 cents in Sy.No.1514/2 in a total extent of Ac.1.59 cents and land in an extent of Ac.1.25 cents in Sy.No.1514/4 of Chintalapudi Village, and Mandal, now Eluru District as illegal, arbitrary and void and also violative of Articles 14, 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to pass an order directing the respondents, particularly the Respondent No.5-Tahsildar to issue Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the lands mentioned above and also in respect of the land in an extent of 0.25 cents in a total extent of Ac.1.59 cents situated in Sy.No.1514/2 of Chintalapudi Village purchased from the said Sathyanandam and his son Raju through a sale agreement dated 26.09.2002 and to pass such other order or orders…” 2. Heard Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 3. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner herein made an application through spandana for grant of pattadar passbooks and for mutation of his name in the revenue records for the land admeasuring 1.25 cents in Sy.No.1514/2 in a total extent of Ac.1.59 cents and in an extent of Ac.1.25 cents in Sy.No.1514/4 of Chintalapudi Village, and Mandal, now Eluru District. The Joint Collector redressed the 5 complaint filed by the petitioner and directed the petitioner to approach Gram Sachivalayam with all relevant documents for mutation of his name in the revenue records. Basing on said documents, action will be initiated in accordance with law vide endorsement dated 19.05.2022. The said endorsement is assailed in the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has obtained the property by way of agreement of sale from the unofficial respondents and also leased for a period of 94 years. Hence, not mutating the name of the petitioner amounts to arbitrariness and implored to direct the Tahsildar to mutate the name of the petitioner. 4. Denying the averments made in the writ affidavit, learned counsel for respondent Nos.9 to 11 filed counter-affidavit, inter alia, contended that unofficial respondents have not executed any document like agreement of sale or lease agreement for a period of 94 years. Even assuming that agreement of lease was executed in favour of the petitioner, petitioner has not provided registration details to indicate that the respondents have leased the property. Mere agreement of sale does not confer any right or title over the property. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for respondents was that unless the person acquired a full title to the property purchased, he cannot be called a purchaser of that property under the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a mere contract of sale does not confer any title to the property in favour of the vendee and unless and until a regular sale deed is 6 executed in pursuance of the agreement of sale, title to the property cannot be said to have been passed in favour of the vendee and the vendee cannot be termed as purchaser unless and until a full title passes to him. 6. Section 17 of the Registration Act that outlines that the documents that have to be compulsorily registered. From a reading of Section 17(1)(b), it is clear that a sale deed is to be registered compulsorily. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act makes it clear that a sale deed exceeding of sum of Rs. 100/- can only be effected by a registered document. A combined reading of these two provisions, it would clearly show that a deed under which there is a transfer of ownership in exchange for consideration and such consideration is over a sum of Rs.100/-, under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly provides that the same can only be done by a registered instrument. In the instant case, the dispute is with regard to Ac.1.25 cents in Sy.No.1514/2 in a total extent of Ac.1.59 cents and an extent of Ac.1.25 cents in Sy.No.1514/4 of Chintalapudi Village, and Mandal, now Eluru District and there is no right transferred to the petitioner and there is no sale deed obtained by the petitioner as contemplated under the Act. 7. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 mandates that a lease of immovable property for any term exceeding one year can be made only by a registered instrument. In the present case, there is no such registered document exists, nor the petitioner provided any registration details. In the absence thereof, it shall be presumed that no valid lease subsists. 7 8. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 21.01.2026 KBN 8 153 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.23945 of 2023 Date: 21.01.2026 KBN