The State Of Andhra Pradesh v. Boorsu , Pulaganti Bhaskara,

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Writ Appeal No.121 of 2018 Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMP No. 49834 of 2017 in W.P. No. 40162 of 2017 dated 7.12.2017. The relief sought for in the Writ Petition is to declare the action of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Madanapalle, in denying the respondent-writ petitioner's right to register the lands of different extents in Devireddipalli of Basinikonda Village of Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary, as a similar document was registered vide document No. 672/2017 in the very same survey number. A consequential direction was sought to the Joint Sub-Registrar to process the respondent-writ petitioner's property for registration, and to release the registered documents.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge noted that the Joint Sub-Registrar had earlier registered a document on 1.12.2016 which was presented by the respondent-writ petitioner's brother; however, when the respondent-writ petitioner made an application, for fixation of market value of his property in the very same survey number, the Joint Sub-Registrar had held that it was assigned land, and was included in the list of prohibited properties; and inclusion of the subject land, in the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Registration Act") treating it as assigned land was, prima facie, arbitrary particularly when pattadar passbook and title deeds had been issued to the respondent-writ petitioner in respect of the subject land. An interim order was passed directing the Joint Sub-Registrar to receive the

documents, presented by the respondent-writ petitioner for the purpose of registration in respect of the subject land, and to register the same strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and to release it to the respondent-writ petitioner within a period of six weeks.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) has placed before us a copy of the letter addressed by the District Collector, Chittoor to the District Registrar, Chittoor on 7.7.2015 enclosing thereto a list of prohibited properties, after exclusion of Gramakantam lands, and all Government lands under Section 22-A(1)(a) to 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act. Learned Government Pleader would submit that at Sl. No. 158 is the subject land in Survey No. 1035/3; and since the subject property is included in the list of prohibited properties, the learned Single Judge had erred in granting the relief sought for in the Writ Petition.

While the Writ Petition was filed on 27.11.2017, the impugned order came to be passed less than three weeks thereafter on 7.12.2017. The effect of the interim order is grant of the main relief sought for in the Writ Petition, that too without the proceedings of the District Collector dated 7.7.2015, including these properties in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, being subjected to challenge. As the interim relief which is granted could only have been granted as a consequence of the order, including these lands in the list of prohibited properties, being set aside, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge ought not have granted the interim relief, which has the effect of allowing the Writ Petition itself, at the stage of admission.

The Joint Sub-Registrar appears to have registered a document on 1.12.2016 even though these lands were included in the list of

prohibited properties vide proceedings dated 7.7.2015. As any such registration would be illegal, and contrary to Section 22-A of the Registration Act, any such illegality would not, prima facie, confer any right on the respondent-writ petitioner to claim that the said illegality should be perpetuated, more so it does appear, from the document placed before us, that the District Collector had included these lands also in the list of prohibited properties. In any event, the order of the nature passed in the order under appeal could not have been passed without giving the appellants (respondents in the Writ Petition) an opportunity of filing their counter-affidavit. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the order under appeal, and restore WPMP No. 49834 of 2017 to file.

The appellants shall file their counter-affidavit within three weeks from today. It is open to Sri V. Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, to request the learned Single Judge to take up the WPMP any day after three weeks. This order shall not disable the respondent-writ petitioner from challenging the validity of the proceedings, of the District Collector dated 7.7.2015, in appropriate legal proceedings. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ) _________________________ (KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J) 26th February, 2018 Pnb

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Writ Appeal No.121 of 2018 Date: 26.2.2018 pnb