THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4269 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner and purchaser of land in D.Nos.33,63 and 106 of Vaddavalli Village, Sattenapalli Town, Guntur District, admeasuring about Ac.6.71 cents. The properties are said to have accrued to him, through his paternal aunt, Smt.B.Ademma. He intended to sell the lands and approached the Sub-Registrar, Stamps and Registrations, Sattenapalli, the 1st respondent herein, to enquire about the feasibility of the same. Placing reliance upon two separate proceedings, issued by the Manager, Sattenapalli Group of Temples, the 5th respondent, stating that the lands in various D-Numbers, including those, mentioned above, are owned by the 5th respondent, the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that transfers in relation to the said lands cannot be registered. The petitioner states that the action of the respondents in not accepting the documents in relation to the land in D.Nos.33, 63, 106 and 359 of Sattenapalli, under the guise of memo dated 09-12- 2006, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard Sri B. Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. In the recent past, the A.P. State Legislature amended the Registration Act, 1908, by adding Section 22-A. Under this provision, the registration of transactions, in relation to different categories of lands mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1), is prohibited. The lands owned by religious institutions and endowments is one such category. On the basis of the information received by him, from the 5th respondent, the 1st respondent had informed the petitioner that, documents in relation to the lands, mentioned in the memo cannot be admitted to registration. In case the petitioner feels that the lands do not belong to the Temple, and that he has ownership rights over the same, he has to avail the remedy under Section 87 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, or to file a suit in a Civil Court for this purpose. There is hardly anything, that the 1st respondent can do, once he receives any information, that the subject-matter of a document, presented before him; falls into one of the clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 87 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, or to file a suit, for determination of the title and character of the property. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt.04-03-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. of 2009 ORDER: The husband of the petitioner by name, J.N. Rao, was a Freedom Fighter. Apart from extending other benefits to him, the Government assigned an extent of Ac.15.00 cents of land in Sy.No.71 of Mallepally, Chinn Village, K District, vide proceedings dated 26-07- 1991. It is stated that after a prolonged legal battle, the possession of 10 acres was delivered. The petitioner states that she incurred huge expenditure and raised loans for her treatment etc., and for that purpose, she intended to sell or mortgage the land. The Sub-Registrar, the 3rd respondent is said to have informed the petitioner that the transactions in respect of the land cannot be registered, since it is covered by the provisions of A.P. Assigned Land Prohibition of Transfer Act, 1977. The petitioner submits that the provisions of the Act do not apply to them, in view of the orders in G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 13-09-1980. It becomes tenable for freedom fighters to sell the land on expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Assignments. Though the Government assigned land in Sy.No.79/1 in favour of the husband of the petitioner on 26-09-1971, the possession of the land was not delivered to the husband of the petitioner during his lifetime. It was only after prolonged pursuit of the matter, that an extent of 10 acres of land in different survey number, i.e.266/1/A was delivered to the petitioner, that too in the year 2004. It is no doubt true that the Government permitted transfer of lands assigned in favour of freedom fighters on expiry of 10 years after the assignment. The dispute in this writ petition is as to the date from which the period of 10 years is to be calculated. If the assignment was complete and perfect on 26-07-1971, there was no necessity for the petitioner to pursue the matter further. For all practical purposes, the assignment made on 26-07-1971 was futile and nothing ensued out of it. Further, the land that was handed over to the petitioner is not the one mentioned in the proceedings dated 26-07-1971. Therefore, the actual assignment can be said to have taken place in favour of the petitioner only in the year 2004, when 10 acres of land in Sy.No. 266/1/A was delivered to her. Obviously, the period of 10 years needs to be reckoned from that date. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the action of the 3rd respondent in refusing to register the transactions vis-à-vis the land. The petitioner can renew her request after completion of 10 years from the date on which the possession was delivered to her. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt.06-03-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO