M SUNANDA Vs. DISTIRCT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of late, the Government, particularly in the Revenue Department; is resorting to steps, which, if resorted to by private individuals, are prone to be treated as instances of baseless and unlivable claims Section 22-A of the Registration Act (for short 'the Act'), introduced through A.P. Act 19 of 2007 has become handy. The result is that a spate of litigation has emerged in the context of requiring the registering authorities to entertain or process the documents, which, in the ordinary course, does not lead to any litigation, whatever. One Sri Vadivelu was granted ryotwari patta in respect of 10 acres of land in Sy.No. 119/2 of Upparapalli Village, Mangalam Group, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, in the year 1979. Fair Adangal was also issued in his name. Thereafter, he sold the property in favour of one Sri Guruvareddy through four sale deeds in the year 1978-79. The land was divided into plots by Guruvareddy and the petitioners purchased plots in the year 1979. They intended to sell the properties. The petitioners approached the Sub-Registrar, the 4th respondent herein with a request to furnish the market value, stamp duty and registration charges in respect of the plots held by them. The 4th respondent refused to furnish the said information on the ground that the land in Sy.No. 119/2 figured in the list of Government lands, furnished by the revenue authorities. Thereupon the petitioners approached the Tahsildar, Tirupati (Urban) Mandal, the 3rd respondent, with a request to issue No Objection Certificate. The 3rd respondent issued endorsement dated 14-08-2010 to the effect that the land is classified as "Pagullasthalam" and that request for issuance of No Objection Certificate cannot be considered. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that once the land is described as Government land in the revenue records, the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Act operates, and the petitioners cannot insist on furnishing of No Objection Certificate. It is also stated that the petitioners have to work out the remedies, vis--vis the classification of the land.

(3.) Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the ryotwari patta was granted under the A.P. Estates Abolition and Conversion into Rythwari Act, 1948, the pattadar becomes absolute owner and the land does not partake any element of Government's interest. He contends that recognising Vadivelu as the absolute owner, the Government sought to acquire the land along with other extents by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, way back on 02-06-1997, and for one reason or the other, the acquisition did not fructify. Learned counsel submits that the description mentioned in the endorsement, or in the counter-affidavit does not find place in any provision of law.