N. Venkata Reddy, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WP No.4937 of 2017 ORDER:

The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the property in question situated in Sy.No.63 of Kakani Nagar, Buchirajupalem Village, Visakhapatnam, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 06-04-1984. The petitioner seems to have made an application to the 10th respondent for sanction of permission to construct ground plus 3 floors, and the 10th respondent, as a condition for grant of building permission, insisted the petitioner to furnish an undertaking of mortgage in the form of an affidavit that no flat or built up area will be given possession of to any 3rd party without obtaining the occupancy certificate from it. 2.

The grievance of the petitioner is that when he sought to present the document (affidavit of mortgage) before the 5th respondent-Joint Sub-Registrar, for registration, the 5th respondent refused to register the same and passed the impugned intimation dated 02-07-2016 informing that the

subject property in question is notified as government poramboke land by the 7th respondent-RDO, Vishakapatnam, in proceedings RC No.7905/2012/A, dated 22-09-2012. Hence, this writ petition. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that 7th respondent-RDO is not competent to decided the list of prohibited properties and it is only the 6th respondent-District Collector, Vishakkapatnam, who is competent to add/delete certain property from the list of prohibited properties. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in 2016 (1) ALT 550.

4.

The contention of the petitioner's counsel that the 7th respondent-RDO is not competent to prepare the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act is not disputed by the learned Asst. Government Pleader for Revenue.

5.

In the circumstances, the order dated 02-07-2016 passed by the 5th respondent is set aside. It is open for the petitioner to make an application to the 6th respondent-

District Collector along with all the documents including the order passed by the Settlement Officer to delete the subject property from the list of prohibited properties and on such a representation being filed by the petitioner, the 6th respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law and also in the light of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2016 (1) ALT 550) within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner in that behalf.

6. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.

____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Dated: 28-03-2017 NRG

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WP No.4937 of 2017 //WEB// 28-03-2017 NRG