|WP 333 / 2013||WPSR 916 / 2013|
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.333 of 2013
Simhadri Prabhakara Rao ……..Petitioner
Government of Andhra Pradesh
Rep.by its Secretary, Revenue,
and two others ………….Respondents Hyderabad
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ghantasala Udaya Bhaskar
Counsel for the Respondents : Assistant Government Pleader
The Court made the following:-
O R D E R:
Feeling aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in not receiving the sale deed sought to be presented by the petitioner for registration in respect of Acre 0.18 ¾ cents in R.S.No.272/1 of Avanigadda Village, Krishna District, (for short “the property”) the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
The petitioner pleaded that the property is a private property, which was purchased by his father’s vendor from his vendors through registered sale deeds, dated 25.11.1968 and 12.07.1971.
The petitioner traced the history of the property as per which their predecessors in title have acquired right over the property through registered gift deed, dated 29.06.1954.
When the petitioner sought to present the sale deed for registration, respondent No.2 allegedly refused to receive the same by stating that respondent No.3-Tahasildar, Avanigadda Mandal, has sent a list whereunder the said land is shown as “Government land”.
This Court has repeatedly held that unless a notification is issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), declaring the property as belonging to the Government or Charitable or Religious Endowments or Wakf property, private communication sent by the revenue authorities do not bind the registering authorities. Respondent No.2 has, therefore, committed a serious illegality in refusing to receive the document sought to be presented by the petitioner based on the communication of respondent No.3. Such an action is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Respondent No.2 is bound to receive the documents that may be presented by the parties and process the same for registration. If he has any legally sustainable reasons for refusal to register the document, he shall pass an order giving reasons for such refusal under Section 71 of the Act.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and a Mandamus shall issue to respondent No.2 to receive the document that may be presented by the petitioner in respect of the said land and process the same in terms of Section 71 of the Act.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.425 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY