RAAVI SATISH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Broadly, these cases arise on account of the action of the Registering Officers of the Registration and Stamps Department in different parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh in not receiving and registering sale deeds or other documents executed for transfer of immovable properties. The acts of refusal are based on different reasons. When some of these cases came up before this Court on 14-11-2012, this Court has noticed alarming rise in the number of cases being filed with the complaint of non-registration of the properties in recent times. This Court has also noticed that most of the cases of refusal to register are due to reasons, which this Court has, on many earlier occasions, held as unsustainable and falling outside the scope of the provisions of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short "the Act"). That even though the law is well settled on several aspects, the Registering authorities have been again and again raising the same objections for registration of the properties which were earlier rejected by this Court. As the spate of the litigation was continuing unabated, as evident from the fact that in the year 2012 itself, as many as 3360 Writ Petitions, which constitute almost 10% of the total number of Writ Petitions filed in that year, this Court felt that it is high-time that a quietus must be placed on this unnecessary and avoidable litigation. A detailed interim order was made on 14-11-2012 wherein this Court has made a broad classification of the cases based on the reasons for rejection to register the properties and directed the Principal Secretary (Revenue), to lay down specific criteria to be followed by the Sub-Registrars in the State based on the decided case law.

(2.) A counter-affidavit was filed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, on perusal of which this Court has expressed its dissatisfaction as he has sought to point out that he has no control over the Registration and Stamps Department, which is headed by a separate Principal Secretary and without whose involvement it is not possible to lay down guidelines. This Court has adjourned the cases with the direction to both the Principal Secretaries of Revenue and Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Departments to make a joint exercise for framing the guidelines. A further affidavit was filed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, wherein he has inter alia requested for an adjournment by stating that as per the A.P. Government Rules and Secretariat Instructions, the issues pertaining to policy decisions which have administrative importance, have to be circulated to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. As this Court was convinced that in view of the settled legal position on various aspects it was quite unnecessary for the issues to undergo the above mentioned process suggested by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, and instead this Court itself can pronounce a Judgment in the light of the well settled legal position, the cases were heard at length. On the direction of this Court, the learned Government Pleader has categorized the cases on the basis of the nature of the reasons for refusal to register the properties and furnished the list to the Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.