IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23097 of 2007 Between: C. Subba Rama Raju S/o. Boden Raju ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd. by the District Collector, Kadapa. 2 The Tahsildar, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. 3 The District Registrar and Assurances, Kadapa. 4 The Joint Sub Registrar-I Kadapa. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring Ref.No. F2/1325/98 dt. 6-12- 2005 and consequently endorsement dt. 25-9-2007 in so far as these communications refer to Paimashi No. 14 and 135 of Pabbapuram Village as illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act 1908 and consequently direct respondents 3 and 4 to accept for registration the documents covering Paimashi Nos. 14 and 135 in an extent of Ac 12.71 cents of Pabbapuram Village, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.BHATT Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare Ref.No.F2/1325/98 dated 6.12.2005 and the consequential endorsement dated 25.9.2007 insofar as they relate to Paimashi Nos.14 and 135 of Pebbapuram Village are concerned as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct respondents 3 and 4 to accept the registration of documents covering the said paimashi numbers in an extent of Ac.12.71 cents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and perused the record. According to the writ averments, Pebbapuram Village is a Shrotriem Village and the shrotriem rights on the entire village have been vested in favour of one Subba Rao, who became entitled to the rights of both Kudivaram and Malivaram by virtue of registered sale deed dated 25.2.1947. With the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1 9 4 8 , Pebbapuram Village was notified as an Inam Estate. Subsequently, Pebbapuram Village was notified under the provisions of the A.P (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1956. Thereafter, the office of CSS and LR through letter dated 19.1.1991 requested the government for necessary orders with regard to regularization of tenure of Pebbapuram Village. The Government through Memo No.465/JA 1/B2-83 dated 30.9.1991 while setting out in detail the factual background of Pebbapuram Village, permitted the CSS & LR for issuing a notification under Act 37 of 1956 till date. But however, so far such a notification was not issued and in fact, no survey or publication of any survey in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act has been published, which lead to an anomalous position leading to filing of series of petitions including a complaint before the Honourable Loakayukta in L.Dis.No.504/99/Lok/B-1/669/04 dated 20.12.2004. While the matters stood thus, the petitioner entered into agreements of sale in an extent of Ac.12.71 cents in Paimashi Nos.14 and 135 of Pebbapuram Village from the ryots, who are in possession of the said lands and also from the successors in interest of original shrotriemdars. But when he presented the documents for registration, the same were refused to be registered on the ground that the lands in Pabbapuram Village cannot be accepted for registration in view of the orders of the District Collector, Kadapa vide Ref.No.F2/1325/98 dated 6.12.2005. Hence this writ petition seeking appropriate directions. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the pendency of a case in Lokayukta cannot be a ground for stopping the entire registrations in Pebbapuram Village. He contends that since the lands in questions are not owned or possessed by the State or Central Government and the government has also not issued any notification under Section 22-A(e) of the Registration (A.P.Amendment) Act, 2006, in respect of the lands in question, refusing to register the lands basing on the impugned endorsement issued by the District Collector is illegal and the same cannot be sustained. The respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit narrating the incidents leading to declaring the Pebbapuram Village as an Inam Village. It is stated that the tenants of the lands in the village have informed the revenue authorities that the Inamdars have been selling the lands to various ryots exceeding 1/3rd share of the lands for which they are entitled as per the Inams Abolition Act. In order to confirm the extents of lands sold away by the Inamdards, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, CK Dinne has informed the Registrar, Kadapa not to register any sales from Pebbapuram Village till the process of enquiry is completed. The District Collector was also requested to direct the District Registrar and Assurance, Kadapa not to register any sales in the village until further orders and a notification under Sub-Section(3) of Section 3 of A.P.Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 (Andhra Act XXX VII of 1956) has been published in Kadapa District Gazettee (Extraordinary) No.3A dated 24.4.1998 and survey work was also completed and fair land registers were prepared by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Kadapa in the year 2003. Meanwhile, a complaint came to be filed before the Honourable Lokayukta for resurvey and for issue of ryotwari pattas. It is also stated that the survey work has been completed and further process is also under progress. Even though the District Collector and the Tahsildar have no power or authority to issue the impugned endorsement stopping registration of the lands in the entire Pabbapuram Village, in order to put a finality to the enquiry pending before the revenue authorities only, the impugned endorsement came to be issued. It is further stated that notices were prepared to serve on the tenants for conducting enquiries and to verify the relevant documents for issue of ryotwari pattas. A perusal of the above counter averments indicate that except the impugned endorsement stopping the registrations in Pebbapuram Village in order to faciliate the enquiry pending before the revenue authorities or the enquiry ordered by the Lokayukta, there is no other reason or specific provision, which enables the respondents to stop registrations in the village. Even Section 22-A of the Act enacted by the Andhra Legislature, which is identical to the one enacted by the legislature of State of Rajasthan empowering the Government to issue notifications almost preventing the registration of documents in respect of the lands to be mentioned therein was held to be ultra vires and the provision was struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Basanth Nahata[1] and following the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.14099 of 2003 and batch dated 7.12.2005 has stuck down Section 22-A of the Act as violative of Article 14 read with Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. That apart, this Court in Thummalachetty Builders and Developers (Pvt) Limited v. Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration[2] dealing with Section 17 of the Registration Act held as under; “The transactions relating to transfer of immovable property is governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Indian Stampt Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908. While the title, capacity of the parties to transfer the property etc., are governed by different laws such as Law of Succession, Testamentary or otherwise., The normal understanding of the general public is that once a document is registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, they get title to the property. But that is no so. The execution of or registration of a document by itself will not create any new title, and the execution of or registration of such document covering an immovable property is governed by the principle Nemo Dat Quad Non Habet, which means ‘no person can transfer/pass a better title than what he possess in the property so transferred’. Given the fact that transfer of an immovable property is governed by this principle, the registering authority when he receives a document and registers it, does not decide title of the persons executing the document. Therefore, mere registration of a document will not confer any new title, and in the case of any title disputes arising out of such registrations, they are subject to an decided under the provisions of various other laws, governing the transfer of immovable property. The object and purpose of the Registration Act, and having considered the same, it held as follows; The object and purpose of the Registration Act, amongst other things, is to provide a method of public registration of documents so as to give information to people regarding legal rights and obligations arising or affecting a particular property , and to perpetuate documents, which may afterwards be of legal importance and also prevent fraud.” A perusal of the above judgments make it evident that registration of a document under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 itself will not create any title and no person can pass a better title than what he possess in the property so transferred. Therefore, even if the documents presented by the petitioners in respect of the lands in Pebbapuram Village are registered, it does not mean that the petitioners are having title to the said lands. If after the enquiry by the revenue officials it appeared that the said lands are not entitled to be registered, the same shall stand cancelled or shall have no bearing on the title of the lands in question. For the foregoing reasons, since there is no basis or power in the 1st respondent-District Collector to issue the impugned endorsement, the same is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. Once the sole basis for the 4th respondent to refuse registration had disappeared, he is under an obligation to receive the documents and consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the Stamps and Registration Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the 4th respondent to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioner and take necessary steps, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act, if the documents are otherwise in order. However, this registration does not confer any title to the petitioner if the enquiry pending before the revenue authorities affects the title of the original owner. ___________________ N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.17.3.2009 msv [1] AIR 2005 SC 3401 = (2005) 12 SCC 77 [2] 2008(6) ALT 227