LAWS(APH)-2023-11-88

PIDATALA RAMIREDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On November 17, 2023
Pidatala Ramireddy Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4 & 6 as also Smt.M.Siva Jyothi, learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, may be narrated thus: The land of an extent of Ac.2.84 cents in Survey No.346/2, Ac.1.12 cents in Survey No.347/2, Ac.1.40 cents in Survey No.345, Ac.1.80 cents in Survey No.351/2 and Ac.1.88 cents in Survey No.352 of Chinnachowk Village fields, Kadapa Mandal were assigned in favour of one Smt.Chippagiri Lakshumma and her family members. The said lands were mortgaged to Rayalaseema Farmers Services Co-operative Society Limited, which is under the control of Kadapa District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Kadapa for securing agricultural loan. As they failed to repay the same, the lands were brought to auction through Proceedings in E.P.No.22/2001-2002 and an auction was conducted on 6/8/2003. One Chippagiri Sreenivasulu was declared as highest bidder in the auction and the Special Category Deputy Registrar-cum-Officer on Special Duty confirmed the sale vide Proceedings dtd. 9/9/2003 and a Certificate of Sale in Form-X was issued on 9/9/2003(Ex.P2). Subsequently, the name of the said Chippagiri Sreenivasulu was mutated in the revenue records in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Title Deed and Pattadar Pass Book were issued to him. On 11/11/2005 through registered Sale Deeds, the said Chippagiri Sreenivasulu sold the subject matter lands to the petitioners and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. On coming to know that the lands in question were included in the prohibitory category list under Sec. 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act(for short 'the Act'), the petitioners filed W.P.No.15607 of 2021 before this Court and the same was disposed of by an Order dtd. 4/8/2021, with a direction to the Sub-Registrar/6th respondent therein to receive and register the Sale Deed to be presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject matter property therein in accordance with Law, notwithstanding the Notification of the property under Sec. 22-A (1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently, the petitioners were constrained to file Writ Petition No.24211 of 2022 as the petitioners' application for mutation of their names in the revenue records was rejected vide Proceedings/Endorsement dtd. 22/3/2022 of the 4th respondent/Tahsildar in the said Writ Petition. While setting aside the said proceedings, a learned Judge vide Order dtd. 18/8/2022 issued directions to the 4th respondent to consider the petitioners' application in the light of the observations of the Division Bench in the case of Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District v. K.Guravaiah,2009(2) ALD 250. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent herein issued Proceedings dtd. 26/2/2023, which are impugned in the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners drawing the attention of this Court to the Orders passed in W.P.No.15607 of 2021 and 24211 of 2022 dtd. 4/8/2021 and 18/8/2022 respectively, advanced detailed arguments. He contends that the impugned Order/Proceedings dtd. 26/2/2023 rejecting the petitioners' request for deletion of the subject matter lands from the prohibitory property list, on the premise that fraud was played in the public auction of the subject lands by the Rayalaseema Farmers Services Cooperative Society Limited, is wholly unsustainable. He submits that right from the beginning the revenue authorities are taking different stands only with a view to deprive the petitioners of their valuable rights. He submits that in W.P.No.15607 of 2021 filed by the petitioners challenging the action of the respondent-authorities therein in including the subject matter lands in the prohibitory category list, which is contrary to the legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench in K.Guravaiah's case (referred to supra), no counter-affidavit was filed and the learned Judge after recording categorical findings directed the 6th respondent/Sub-Registrar therein to receive and register the Sale Deed presented by the petitioners, notwithstanding the Notification of the property under Sec. 22-A(1)(a) of the Act. He submits that the orders of the learned Judge have attained finality as no appeal has been preferred by the respondent-authorities.