Pullareddy Nagireddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE A.RAMALI NGESWARA RAO Writ Petition No.3502 of 2018 Order:

The petitioner states that the agricultural land of an extent of Ac.0-19 cents, situated in Survey No.307-3C of Kappalabanda village, Puttaparthy Mandal, Ananthapur District, is the ancestral property of his vendor, who succeeded the said property by inheritance. The petitioner intended to purchase the said land and approached the fourth respondent for registration of the document. When he refused to receive the same without assigning any reasons, the petitioner filed W.P.No.37867 of 2017 and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the fourth respondent to receive and consider the document presented by the petitioner for registration in accordance with law.

Pursuant to the same, the petitioner made an application to the fourth respondent and when the fourth respondent replied that the subject lands are included in the prohibited list under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, and the document cannot be registered, the present Writ Petition is filed. This Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. State of A.P.1 considered the said issue and held as follows: 35.1 Further, as noticed earlier the State Government is empowered either suo motu or on application to consider the grievances against inclusion of any property in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of Registration Act and is also empowered to de-notify either in full or in part the notification issued under subsection (2).

In our opinion, the redressal mechanism is available only with respect to notifications published relating to the properties falling under clause (e) of Section 22-A. Hence, any grievance of the parties with reference to the properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) will have to be questioned by the aggrieved parties only by appropriate proceedings before a competent Court and the adjudication by such Court would be final.

mechanism thereunder is effective, expeditious, fair, and judicious. Thus, in order to make an effective redressal mechanism, we deem it appropriate to direct the respective Governments of both the States to constitute a Committee or establish a Forum within time frame, may be comprising of Principal Secretary of Revenue, Director of Survey and Land Records and a retired Judicial Officer of the rank of a District Judge which shall meet periodically to consider the grievances of the persons affected by the notifications. The Committee shall be empowered to examine relevant records and then pass a reasoned order either accepting or rejecting the grievance by either confirming/deleting/modifying any such property from the notified list of properties. In our view, such orders passed by the Committee shall be binding on the State as well as on the aggrieved person and in the event of any of them being aggrieved thereby, they shall have to approach a competent Court of Law for redressal of their grievance.

In view of the same, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the said grievance redressal committee for appropriate relief by making proper application. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grievance redressal committee was not constituted and there is no one to redress the grievance of the petitioner. If no grievance redressal committee is constituted as directed by this Court, the petitioner is given liberty to submit proper representation to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the grievance expressed by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ A. RAMALI NGESWARA RAO, J Date: 06.02.2018 Nsr