THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTI CE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17857 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the respondent Devasthanam has no jurisdiction to interfere with the construction of building by the petitioner at H.No./Plot No.18-13, Adivivaram Village, Seethammadhara, Ward No.36, Old No.275/1D, Visakhapatnam, in pursuance of the permission granted by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in the proceedings dated 30.06.2007 and to further declare that such interference is in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner, as stated in the aﬃdavit filed in support of the writ petition, is as under: The petitioner is the owner of Plot No.18-13, Adivivaram Village, Seethammadhara, Ward No.36, Old No.275/1D, Visakhapatnam, admeasuring 360.99 sq. mts having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 16.6.2000 from one Smt. M. Durga Sarvani. When the said document was presented for registration, the respondent attempted to interdict the said transaction placing reliance upon a notification No.578 dated 19.08.2000 issued under the purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act’). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.23038 of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 27.10.2006 following the Judgment of the Division Bench dated 7.12.2005 in W.P.No.14099 of 2003 and batch and directing that as and when the documents are presented by the petitioner, registering authority shall accept the same for registration and if for any reason the same cannot be registered record and furnish reasons. The said order in W.P.No.23038 of 2002 has become ﬁnal and in pursuance of the said order, the registering authority registered the sale deed dated 16.06.2000 in favour of the petitioner on 11.12.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the Commissioner of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation seeking permission to construct a building on the land purchased by her as per the plan annexed. Having considered the same, the Corporation granted building permission by proceedings dated 30.06.2007. On the basis of the said permission the petitioner started construction of a building. However, the employees of the respondent Devasthanam caused obstruction alleging that the sale of land in favour of the petitioner was not valid. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent Devasthanam is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner states that the land in question which was purchased by her under a registered sale deed originally belonged to one N. Ramayya in whose favour patta No.248 was granted by the then Raja of Vizianagaram in the year 1946. After the death of the said Ramayya, his widow Smt. Nelagiri Ramayamma sold the said land as building sites to various people. On e Smt. Laxmi Devi purchased PlotNo.14 consisting of 375.94 sq. yards under a registered sale deed dated 14.11.1974, who in turn sold the same to the petitioner’s vendor Smt. M. Durga Sarvani under a registered sale deed dated 21.7.1993. Since the petitioner purchased the said land for a valuable consideration from Smt. M. Durga Sarvani and the sale in her favour was also duly registered on 19.08.2000, she acquired absolute title in respect of the land in question and she is entitled to proceed with the construction of the building in terms of the permission granted by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation vide its proceedings dated 30.06.2007. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondent Devasthanam though the sale in favour of the petitioner is not disputed, it is contended that in view of the Registration (A.P. Amendment) Act No.19 of 2007 substituting Section 22-A of the Act, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any right over the land in question on the basis of the sale deed obtained by her. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Section 22-A of the Act which was inserted by Registration (A.P. Amendment) Act, 1999 was struck down by a Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 7.12.2005 in W.P.No.14099 of 2003 following a decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BASANT NAHATA[1]. The Special Leave Petition ﬁled by the State Government against the said Judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11.08.2006. As noticed above, registration of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner dated 16.06.2000 was kept pending on account of G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 22-A of the Act while it was in force. However, after the Judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.No.14099 of 2003 striking down Section 22-A of the Act, W.P.No.23038 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioner herein was disposed of by this Court by order dated 27.10.2006 setting aside G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000 and making it clear that as and when the document is presented by the petitioner the registering authority shall accept the same for registration and if for any reasons the same cannot be registered, reasons shall be recorded and furnished. It is not in dispute that in compliance with the said directions of this Court, the sale deed dated 16.06.2000, which was already presented by the petitioner for registration was registered on 11.12.2006. Subsequently, the Registration Act, 1908 was further amended in its application to the State of Andhra Pradesh by Registration (A.P. Amendment) Act, 2006 (Act No.19 of 2007) thereby substituting the new section in the place of Section 22-A, which was struck down by this Court in W.P.No.14099 of 2003. In view of new Section 22-A (1) as substituted by Act 19 of 2007 prohibiting registration of certain classes of documents speciﬁed under clauses (a) to (e), the respondents contended that the petitioner has not acquired any right over the land in question by virtue of sale deed dated 16.6.2000. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Act No.19 of 2007, which came into force with eﬀect from 20.6.2007 has no application to the instant case. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent while placing reliance upon Section 3 of Act 19 of 2007 contended that by virtue of validation clause under Section 3 the registration of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner shall be deemed to be invalid. For proper appreciation of the rival contentions made by the parties, it is necessary to refer to Section 3 of Act No.19 of 2007 which runs as under: “3. Validation:- Notwithstanding anything in any judgment, decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or any other authority to the contrary no notiﬁcation declaring that the registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to public policy and the refusal of the same for registration under Section 22-A of the principal Act during the period with eﬀect from 1st April, 1999 being the date of the commencement of the Registration (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act 4 of 1999) upto the date of the commencement of the Registration (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2006 substituting new Section 22-A in the Principal Act, shall be deemed to be invalid and the refusal for registration of the said document deemed to have been validly refused for registration, and accordingly:- (a) no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any Court against the State Government or any person or authority whatsoever for the purpose of registration; and (b) no Court shall enforce any decree or order directing to register.” A plain reading of the above provision shows that the same is attracted to notiﬁcations made under Section 22-A of the Principal Act and also to the refusal of any document for registration during the period from 1.4.1999 upto the date of commencement of the Registration (A.P. Amendment) Act, 2006 i.e., 20.6.2007. It is declared under Section 3 that no notiﬁcation made under Section 22-A of the Principal Act during the above said period shall be deemed to be invalid. Similarly refusal for registration of any document for registration under Section 22-A of the Principal Act during the said period shall be deemed to have been validly refused for registration. In the case on hand, admittedly sale deed dated 16.6.2000 in favour of the petitioner, which was kept pending in the office of the Registrar during the pendency of W.P.No.23038 of 2007, was registered on 11.12.2006 in terms of the order of this Court dated 27.10.2006 in W.P.No.23038 of 2002. Thus this is not a case where the registration was refused under Section 22-A of the Principal Act during the period speciﬁed under Section 3 of Act 19 of 2007 i.e., 1.4.1999 to 20.6.2007. It is also relevant to note that G.O.Ms.No.578, dated 19.8.2000 issued under Section 22-A of the Principal Act under which the registration of the sale deed of the petitioner dated 16.6.2000 was initially prohibited was already set aside by this Court by order dated 27.10.2004 in W.P.No.23038 of 2002 and the said order has become ﬁnal. Thus, G.O.Ms.No.578, dated 19.8.2000 prohibiting the registration of the documents under Section 22-A of the Principal Act does not subsist at all. Thus, both the circumstances speciﬁed under the validation clause under Section 3 of the Act No.19 of 2007 are not attracted to the present case. Consequently, the registration of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 11.12.2006 cannot be held to be vitiated by virtue of newly inserted Section 22-A under Act No.19 of 2007. For the aforesaid reasons, the contention of the respondents on the basis of Section 22-A as substituted under Act No.19 of 2007 read with the validation clause under Section 3 of Act No.19 of 2007 is untenable and cannot be accepted. Hence, there cannot be any interference by the respondent-Devasthanam with the construction being made by the petitioner in terms of the building permission granted by the Commissioner of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed declaring the impugned action of the respondent as arbitrary and illegal. No costs. 18.08.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17857 of 2007 Between: G. Kalpana W/o. V. Rajendra Prasad, R/o.Door No. 18-13/1, Adivivaram, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Varaha Lakshminarasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District, represented by its Executive Officer. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate order direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring that the respondent has no jurisdiction to interfere with the construction of building at H.No/Plot No. 18-13, Adivivaram Village, Seethammadhara, Ward No. 36, Old Survey No. 275/1D, Visakhapatnam in pursuance of the Permission granted by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in the proceedings B.A.No.2007-ba-10863/G2 dated 30-6-2007 and that such interference is in violation of Articles 14, 21 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. THANNIRU SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.V.T.M.PRASAD The Court made the following : ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} [1] 2005(12) SCC 77