IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAjfc^^^ ‘ \

(Special Original Jurisdiction) s

W) I
MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION NO: 35699 OF 2016

Between:

Reddy Ganganna S/o Subbanna, R/o 8-4-16, Krishnayapalam Village,

Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh

...PETITIONER
AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary,

Revenue (Registration), L-Block, 7th Floor, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500022.
2. The Inspector General of Stamps and Registration, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Off at 5-3-953, Registration Bhavan, 2nd and 3rd Floor, Nizam
Shahi Road, Osmarigunj, M.J.Market, Hyderabad - 500001
3. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Andhra, Pradesh.
4. The District Registrar, West Godavari District, Andhra, Pradesh.
5. The Sub Registrar, Tadepalligudam, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh
6. The Tahsildar, Tadepalligudam Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra
Pradesh

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the S*" respondent a. In
cancelling the. already "admitted Settlement Deed" which was assigned with Doc
No. 535/2016 executed by the writ petitioner and another in favour of his younger
son one Mr. Reddy Siva Kumar, by manipulating and Erasing the entries in Book-1
maintained under Part-XI of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, so as to make
believe that the said document No.535/2016 to be a Mortgage Deed of third
parties, as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, unjust and also lacking inherent
jurisdiction, it also amounts to exceeding the powers vested in the 5th respondent
under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, b. To also declare the action of the 5th
respondent in passing refusal endorsement No.1 of 2016, based upon the 6th
respondent's letter and concluding that, writ petitioner does not have title,
amounted to usurping the powers of a civil court being a quasiJudicial authority
not empowered to do so. moreso in the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this
Hon Die Court in Yanala Malleshwari vs Ananthula Sayamma reported in 2006 (6)
♦ illegal, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction, c. Consequentially
to direct the respondents to restore back the original entries of assigning and
admitting the writ petitioner's Settlement document as Doc. No. 535 of 2016 on the
file of 5th respondent in the interest of justice, d. Consequentially, to direct the
respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate disciplinary action against the 4th and 5th
respondents for their gross misuse and abuse of their official functions.

j.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 43973 OF 2016)

Petition under Section 151 of the C.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct
the 2 respondent to exercise his superintendent power under Section 69 (1) &
(2) (e) to (h) & 0) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and to set at naught the
illegalities committed by the 4**’ and 5*’’ respondents after verifying all the records
maintained in the office of the 5®* respondent more particularly, with regards to
entires in Book-1 of 2016 or in the alternative, to suspend the impugned refusal
endorsement 1 of 2016 on the file of 5*'’ respondent, in the interest of justice
pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. KOMARA PRUDHVI RAJ

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 6 : GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following: ORDER

 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION Wo.35699 of 2016

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“...to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction

more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent
(a) In cancelling the already admitted Settlement Deed
which was assigned with Doc.No.53S/2016 executed by '
th^writ petitioner and another in favour of his younger
son one Mr.Reddy Siva Kumar by manipulating and
erasing the entries in Book-I maintained under Part-XI
of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 so €is to make
believe that the said document No.S35/2016 to be a
Mortgage Deed of third parties, as illegal, arbitrary,
high handed, unjust and also lacking inherent
Jurisdiction, it also amounts to exceeding the powers
vested in the respondent under the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 (b) To also declare the action of
the S*>* respondent in passing refusal endorsement No.l
•i-' ■

of 2016 based- upon the S*/* respondents letter and

concluding that writ petitioner does not have title
amounted to usurping the powers of a civil court being
a quasi Judicial authority not empowered to do so more
so, in the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this
Hon‘ble Court in Yanala Malleshwari vs Ananthula
Sayamma reported in 2006 (6) ALT 523 fFB) illegal,
arbitrary and without any ' Jurisdiction fc)
Consequentially to direct the respondents to restore
back the original entries of assigning and admitting
the writ petitioners Settlement document as Doc.No.535
of 2016 on the file of 5*'' respondent in the interest of
Justice (d) Consequentially to direct the respondents 1
and 2 to take appropriate disciplinary action against
 2

the 4*^ and S*** respondents for their gross misuse and
abuse of their official functions...”.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s

father i.e., Sri. Reddy Subbanna, during his life time has

acquired lands in RS.No.32, to an extent of 1.02 cents through a

registered sale deed dated 23.03.1956, having purchased the

same from one Chundru Swami. After the death of his father, the

said property devolved upon the petitioner and his sons which

was sub-divided and after sub-divisional bifurcation, the

petitioner acquired an extent of 0.24 cents { Ac.0.10 cents in

RS.No.31/2B, Ac.0.07 cents in RS.No.32/2B and Ac.0.07 cents

in RS.No.32/2C).

3. The said sub-division was done by the Tahsildar after

duly receiving a field survey report on 01.02.1968 and since then.

the petitioner has been in physical possession and enjoyment of

the same. Thereafter, in the year 2016, when the petitioner with

an intention to settle the said property to his elder son, has

executed a settlement deed on 26.01.2016 and presented the

same for registration after paying the requisite stamp duty.

registration charges and user charges to a tune of Rs.5,040/-.

The 5* respondent, after duly niaking all enquiries as

contemplated under Part-VI of the Indian Registration Act, 1908,

 3

has registered the said document and admitted the same for

registration under Section 58 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908

by assigning Document No.535 of 2016 in Book-I under Section

60 of the Act, 1908, on 22.01.2016.

4. Thereafter, on 23.01.2016, the 5*^ respondent

received a complaint, from a third party by name Reddy Shiva

Prasad, claiming that he is the owner of different extents of land

in RS.No.31/part and 32/part, having-purchased the same from

the petitioner’s brother and has requested the 5*^ respondent to

cancel the said document in. pursuance of. which the 5***

respondent tampered the records and registers that are

maintained under Section 60 and 61 of the Act, 1908 by erasing

the name of the petitioner as against Doc.No.535/2015 and

assigning it to a Mortgage deed executed by one Reddy

Dhanamohan Rao in favour of Badampudi Large Size Co-

operative Society Ltd., who presented their document for

registration on 10.02.2016 and is evidenced by SBI challan. The

main grievance of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent had

manipulated the records as if the said document is presented for

registration on 22.01.2016 and that, it has been assigned with a

Regular Doc.No.535/2016.
 4

5. Against the said illegal acts of the 5th respondent, the

petitioner has given a written complaint to the 3’-^ respondent-

District Collector, who in turn re-directed the complaint to the 4th

respondent-District Registrar herein, Thereafter, the • 5*

respondent had submitted a letter to the 6* respondent, who

gave an erroneous and false reply on 26.04.2016, without looking

into to his earlier records by stating that the petitioner’s name

appears only in RS.No.32/2C to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents and

does not appear in RS.Nos.32/2B and 31/2B, without

mentioning the total sub-divisional extents held by all the

persons in both the RS.Nos.31 and 32.

6. The further grievance of the petitioner is that, the 4th

respondent has given the petitioner a refusal endorsement vide

RC.NO.391/2016/B, dated 26.04.2016, by making an entry in

Book-II, Volume-2, page-29, as refusal Doc.No.l of 2016 which is

totally manipulated and tampered record. Thereafter, the

petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 72 of the Act, 1908

before the 4th respondent, which was rejected vide C.No.710 of

2016/Gl, dated 08.09.2016, without even verifying the records.

7. The respondent No. 5, filed a counter affidavit stating

that the petitioner herein and his son executed a Settlement Deed

dt.22.1.2016 in favour of Reddy Siva Kumar in respect of an

............. 1
 5

extent of 0.10 cents in Sy.No.31/2B, an extent of Ac.0.07 cents in

Sy.No.32/2B and an extent of Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.No.32/2C

situated in Krishnayapalem Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal,

West Godavari District and presented the same before the then

Sub-Registrar, Tadepalligudem for Registration by paying

requisite Stamp Duty and Registration Fee.

8. The then Sub- Registrar, Tadepalligudem received

the document, assigned document No.535 of 2016 and sent the

same for scanning during the evening hours of 22.1.2016. Due to

rush of work, the scanning could not be completed on that day,

but, however, on the next day i.e., on 23.1.2016 one Mr.Reddy

Shiva Prasad approached the then Sub-Registrar and gave a

written complaint stating that he is the owner of the following

lands vide khatha No.573 and Pass Book No.E575269.

R.S.NO.31/2A: Ac.0.62cts
R.S.NO.31/2B: Ac.O.lOcts
R.S.NO.32/2B: Ac.0.12cts
R.S.NO.32/2C: Ac.0.04cts
R.S.NO.32/2D: Ac.0.12cts
R.S.NO.32/2F: Ac.0.25cts

He further stated that he has not sold the said properties

in Sy.No.31/2B, 32/2B and 32/2C to anybody and he came to

know that some third parties executed a Settlement deed in

I
 6

respect of his property vide document No.535/2016 and

requested to stop the registration.

9. It is submitted that by the time the complaint was

received by the then Sub-Registrar, the scanning process is not

completed. Immediately, the then Sub-Registrar stopped

registration of the Settlement deed. During that process, both

parties quarrelled, with each other and created. nuisance in the

office of the Sub-Registrar, Tadepalligudem. Having no other

alternate, the then Sub-Registrar cancelled the regular number

allotted to the Settlement deed and assigned the said regular

document No.535/2016 to another document and kept the

Settlement Deed pending vide P.No. 190/2016. Thereafter, the

then Sub-Registrar addressed a letter dt. 16.4.2016 to the

Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem requesting him to inform the names of

the original pattadar of the subject property as per revenue

records.

10. It is also stated that on 18.4.2016, the petitioner

made a representation to the District Collector, West Godavari

during Prajavani/Meekosam programme requesting to take

action against the then Sub-Registrar for not registering his

Settlement Deed. The District Collector, in turn forwarded the

same to the then District Registrar, Eluru i.e., the 4^^ respondent
 7

for taking necessary action. Immediately, the 4th respondent

called for explanation of the then Sub-Registrar over telephone.

The then Sub-Registrar submitted his explanation dt. 18.4.2016,

Stating that he addressed a letter to the Tahsildar,

Tadepalligudem seeking particulars of the names of the original

Pattadar of the subject land and on receipt of reply from the

Tahsildar, he will take necessary ‘ action on the pending

document. The petitioner made a similar representation to the

Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps

and the same was forwarded to the 4th respondent.

11. It is submitted that in reply to the letter addressed by

the then Sub- Registrar, the Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem through

letter dt.26.4.2016 inforihed as follows:

SI. R.S. Extent Name of the Name of the Enjoyment

Pattadar Enjoydar extent Ac.Cts.
No. NO. Ac.Cts

1. 31-2B 0.10 Reddy Siva Prasad, Siva Prasad Reddy, 0.10

S/o. Sanjeeva Rao S/o. Sanjeevarao

Reddy

2. 32-2C 0.13 Reddy Siva Prasad, Siva Prasad Reddy, 0.04

S/o Sanjeeva Rao. S/o. Sanjeevarao

Reddy Ganganna, Reddy Ganganna

____
 8

S/o Subbanna S/o. Subbanna 0.09

3. 32-2B 0.12 Reddy Siva Prasad, Siva Prasad Reddy, 0.12

S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy

S/o. Sanjeeva Rao

12. On receipt of the reply from the Tahsildar, the then

Sub-Registrar passed order No. 1/2016 Dt.30.5.2016 Under

Section 71 of the Registration Act refusing registration of the

Settlement deed vide P.No. 190/2016, communicated a copy of

the refusal order to the petitioner and returned the original

document to him. It is submitted that aggrieved by the refusal

order dt.30.5.2016, the petitioner herein and his son Reddy Ravi

Kumar filed an Appeal before the 4*11 respondent on 21.6.2016.

Thereafter, the respondent issued notice dt. 11.7.2016 to both

the parties and to the then Sub-Registrar, Tadepalligudem

requesting them to appear before the 4*11 respondent on

18.7.2016 for enquiry. On 18.7.2016 the then Sub-Registrar as

well as all the concerned parties appeared before the 4^

respondent. After conducting enquiry, as the name of the

petitioner is not tallying with the webland record, the 4^

respondent rejected the appeal presented by the petitioner vide

C.NO.710/2016/G1 dt.8.9.2016.
 9

13. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner

approached this Hon'ble court and filed the above writ petition on

20.10.2016. On 1.11.2016 when the above matter came up

before this Hon'ble court, this Hon'ble court has passed the

following order:

Wlhen the matter is taken up for hearing, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue states that
pursuant to the report given by the petitioner, dt.19.4.2016,
notice has been issued to the Sub-Registrar.

If any enquiry is sought to be conducted by the

authorities concerned, the writ petitioner maybe given
opportunity to participate in the said enquiry and assist the
authority with necessary documents."

14. Pursuant to the above said order, the 4* respondent

issued a notice dt. 17.2.2017 to the petitioner as well as to the

then Sub-Registrar requesting them to attend before the 4^^

respondent on 27.2.2017 at 2 P.M. for enquiry. Both of them

attended the enquiry and the 4*^ respondent recorded their

depositions. The then Sub-Registrar signed on his deposition

wherein he agreed the mistake committed by him whereas the

petitioner refused to sign the same and went away. After

conducting enquiry, the respondent having come to a conclusion

that the then Sub-Registrar has committed illegality in erasing

the regular document No.535/2016 with white fluid and assigned

 10

the same to another document and not assigned the pending

number immediately after receipt of the document, submitted the

enquiry report to the Deputy Inspector General of Registration

and Stamps, Eluru requesting him to take action against the

then Sub-Registrar for the irregularity committed by him, as per

rules. In the meanwhile, the then Sub-Registrar Gudipudi Raju

was trapped by the A.C.B authorities and at present he had been

dismissed from service.

15. Further, with regard to the title of the petitioner in

respect of the subject property, it is submitted that the Chief

Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad issued a

Circular No. 2/162/1/2012 dt.2.7.2013 stating that when the

applicant approached the Sub-Registrar for registration with the

required documents such as Aadhaar Card or other ID cards,

PPB & Title Deed and ROR IB, the Sub-Registrar should verify

the seller particulars with Pattadar name in webland records. In

case, if seller name matches with the Pattadar name in web land

software, registration will be done at SRO's end and registration

particulars will be automatically processed through CARD

software to web land software. In case if seller name does not

matches with Pattadar name, SRO should not register the

document and should guide the seller to approach Meeseva

t
 11

centre to apply for mutation and further requested the

Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration of Stamps to

issue instructions in this regard.

16. Based on this Circular, the, Commissioner and

Inspector General of Registration . and Stamps issued a

Memo.No.Gl/9732/20i3 dt.17.7.2013 stating that the

particulars of the Seller should match with the particulars in the

web land provided by the Revenue Department. In the instant

case, as per the report submitted by the Tahsildar, as against the

extent of Ac.0.24 as claimed by the petitioner, he got only Ac.0.09

cents in Sy.No.32-2C and he own no land in the other survey

numbers.

17. In view of the circular dated 02.07.2013 and as well

as the subsequent memo dated 17.07.2013 issued by the

Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps,

it is clear that the Sub-Registrar’s power is restricted only to the

extent of registering the document basing on the documents

furnished by the vendor, such as Aadhar Card or other ID Cards,

pattadar pass book and title deeds and ROR IB, after duly

verifying the seller particulars with Pattadar name in webland

records and if at all the name of the seller matches with the name

of the pattadar in the webland software, the Sub-Registrar can

/
 12

proceed with the registration. But. if at all it does not match with

the pattadar name, the Sub-Registrar is not entitled to register

the said document.

18. But, however, in such case, the seller should

approach the Meeseva Centre to apply for mutation and then

approach the sub-registrar. In the present case, admittedly, the

name of the seller in the pattadar did not tally with the webland

software. As such, the Sub-Registrar kept the document pending

by allotting P.No. 190/2016, which was further confirmed in the

appeal under Section 72.

19. For a better appreciation of this case, this Court feels

it relevant to refer to Section 77, of the Indian Registration Act,

1908, which reads as follows:

“(7; Where the Registrar refuses to order the document to

be registered, under section 72 or a decree section 76, any
person claiming under such document, or his
representative, assign or agent, may, within thirty days
after the making ofthe order ofrefusal, institute in the
Civil Court, within the local limits ofwhose original
jurisdiction is situate the office in which the document is
sought to be registered, a suitfor a decree directing the
document to be registered in such office if it be duly
presentedfor registration within thirty days after the
passing ofsuch decree.

(2) The provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of

section 75 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to all documents
presentedfor registration in accordance with any such
decree, and, notwithstanding anything contained in thi^.. .

tr.w
 i •
13

Act, the documents shall be receivable in evidence in such

suit. ”

20. As the appeal has already been rejected by the

District Registrar, the petitioner, as per Circular dated

02.07.2013, should apply for mutation in the Meeseva Centre and

thereafter, should approach the Sub-Registrar. As the present

case involves certain disputed questions of fact whether the

document was registered on 22,01.2016 or on 23.01.2016, it can

be decided Ohly by the Civil Court.

21. In view of the above, this Court feels it appropriate to

dispose of the writ petition by leaving it open to the petitioner to

approach competent Civil Court in accordance with Section 77 of

the Indian Registration Act, 1908, raising all his grievances, if

any, as raised herein.

22. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any,

'i a ■
I ?
shall also stand closed.

\
Sd/- K.J. RAJA BABU
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration), State of Andhra Pradesh,
Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.
2. The Inspector. General of Stamps and Registration, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Vijayawada.
i 3. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Andhra, Pradesh.
4. The District Registrar, West Godavari District, Andhra. Pradesh.
i. 5. The Sub Registrar, Tadepalligudam, West Godavari District, Andhra Rradesh
6. The Tahsildaf, Tadepalligudam Mahdal, West Godavari District, Andhra
Pradesh
7. One CC to SRI. KOMARA PRUDHVI RAJ Advocate [OPU.C]
8. Two CC.s to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
9. Two CD Copies.
MSR
lo, 'd-t* (Jaquj
♦

HIQH COURT

DATED:01/05/2023

ORDER
WP.No.35699of2016
\v
~Rc ................

11 AUG 2023 I
Current Section

DISPOSING OF WP
WITHOUT COSTS