KERAM MANGAIAH Vs. AGENT OF GOVERNMENT AT KHAMMAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of filing these writ petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenged the rejection endorsement dt. 15-6-1995 of the second respondent, Sub-Registrar, Kothagudem refusing to register sale documents presented for registration in the light of Form-L dated 10-6-1995 received from the first respondent, Agent to the Government, Khammam.

(2.) Since issue that falls for adjudication in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The petitioners in WP No. 14369/1995 and 14370/1995 intend to purchase Ac. 1-00 in S.No. 118/2 and Ac.2-16 guntas in S.No.118/2 situate at Chunchupalli Gram Panchayat in Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District respectively. The area is a notified scheduled area. The documents were presented for registration in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kothagudem under Ref. No.P8/87 and P4/89 along with declaration in Form-K requesting to grant Form-L to register the sales took place in favour of the declarants. In the light of the declarations filed by the petitioners, as the transaction took place in the scheduled village, the matter required to be enquired by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Rule 18(1) of the A. P. Scheduled Areas ,Land Transfer Rules, 1969 (for short "the Transfer Rules"). The Revenue Divisional Officer who enquired into the matter submitted his report to the Agent to Government stating that the purchasers are scheduled tribes and the land under the sale deed was assigned to Md. Jaheeruddin and the seller is not having saleable rights over the land. Since the transaction is in violation of Section 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short "the Act 9 of 1977"), the first respondent issued Form-L under Rule 18 (2)(b) of the Transfer Rules to the Registering Authority directing him to refrain from registering documents in view of the prohibition contained under Act 9 of 1977. Correctness of the same is challenged con tending that the first respondent did not refer to the authority under which he is entitled to issue such direction to the second respondent, the same is without jurisdiction and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to explain how Sec. 5 of the Act 9 of 1997 has no application to the facts of the present cases, which prohibits registration of assigned land. Since land in question was not shown to have been covered by any list of assigned lands prepared by the Collector and issued to the second respondent, direction issued by the Collector is without jurisdiction. The second respondent can refuse to register the documents only in case the land is in the list of assigned lands prohibited to be transferred and the action of the first respondent in issuing direction to the second respondent from refraining to register the documents is arbitrary and the same is liable to be set-aside. After restraining the respondent No.2 from registering the document, R-1 appears to have instructed his subordinate staff to take steps to take action under Section 4 of the Act 9 of 1977 without affording any opportunity to the petitioners to explain against the action proposed.