LAWS(APH)-2012-11-36

KONKALA AMARAVATHI Vs. SUB-REGISTRAR, MADANAPALLE

Decided On November 19, 2012
Konkala Amaravathi Appellant
V/S
Sub-Registrar, Madanapalle Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not entertaining the sale deeds submitted by the petitioners for registration in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1-87 cents in Survey No.673/4 at Kollabailu Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The petitioners purchased different parcels of properties forming part of the abovementioned land from one K.Krishna Reddy. A perusal of the record shows that the said K.Krishna Reddy has purchased the same in a public auction held by the Special Category Deputy Registrar-cum-Officer on Special Duty, Chittoor District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Chittoor, vide Sale Certificate, dated 05-02-2007, and registered Sale Deed, dated 08-02-2007. When respondent No.2 sought to interfere with the possession of the petitioners' vendor, the latter has filed OS.No.132 of 2008 in the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, for permanent injunction. After a full-fledged trial, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, decreed the said suit on 29-02-2012. A perusal of the judgment in the said suit would show that the same is supported by well-perceived reasoning. The Civil Court has considered the effect of the provisions of Sections 2 (1), 3 and 6 of the A.P. Assigned Lands [Prohibition of Transfers] Act, 1977 (for short 'Act 9 of 1977') and opined that since the land in question, which, admittedly, was assigned land, was auctioned by a Co-operative Society for recovery of the loans advanced to the assignee, its sale is protected by the provisions of Section 6 of Act 9 of 1977. On a thorough analysis of the facts and law, the Civil Court has decreed the suit for permanent injunction against respondent No.2.

(3.) Despite the said judgment, respondent No.2 appeared to have written to respondent No.1 that the land in question is an assigned one. On the basis of the said communication, respondent No.1 has refused to receive the sale deeds sought to be presented by the petitioners.