Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Indireddy Venu Gopal Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION No. 8983 of 2023
DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 13 MAY 2023
INTRODUCTION
The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s representation for deletion of the subject properties from the prohibited list of Dappepalli Village, Lakkireddypalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District has not been considered by the 2nd respondent (The District Collector).
The main provisions followed in this petition is of Registration act, 1908 added through state amendment.
section 22A. Documents registration of which is opposed to public policy —
(1) The State Government may, by notification, in the official Gazette, declare that the registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to public policy.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issued under sub-section (1) is applicable.
FACTS
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner purchased the part of the subject land through a registered sale deed dated 22.02.2016 for an extent of Acres 5.00 cents in Survey No.564 of the said village.
He purchased the other portion of the subject land through a registered sale deed dated 28.10.2009 for an extent of Acres 2.19 cents in Survey No.565 and Acre 1.00 cents in Survey No.566 of the said village and since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
Petitioner approached the respondent authorities for mutation of his name in the revenue records. Then it came to light that the subject land is placed under the prohibited list under the head of dotted land.
Then petitioner made an online application. In pursuance of the same, the 4th respondent submitted a report to the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) dated 11.08.2018 recommending for deletion of the subject property from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The 3rd respondent (The Revenue Divisional Officer) also submitted a report to the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) dated 22.02.2022 to consider the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, there is no progress in the matter.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that, the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) Committee would decide the issue basing upon the earlier reports submitted by the respondent Nos.3 (The Revenue Divisional Officer) and 4 (The Tahsildar) by following the due procedure.
JUDGEMENT
The court held that the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) Committee shall consider and pass appropriate orders in continuation of the reports submitted by the 4th (The Tahsildar) and 3rd (The Revenue Divisional Officer) respondents dated 11.08.2018 and 22.02.2022 as expeditiously as possible strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of this order. Upon hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner and upon verification of the records and the subject land, the appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
