THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1599 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas land in Sy.No.498/1 of Nagireddypet Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District, through a sale deed dated 31-05-2002. The 2nd petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.2.30 guntas of land in the same survey number, through document dated 17-10-2003. Their vendor, Mr.V. Venkatarami Reddy was shown as pattedar from 1956-1957 onwards, and the revenue records reflected the same. The petitioners intended to sell their lands. With a view to satisfy the Sub-Registrar, the 3rd respondent herein, with reference to verification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioners approached the Tahsildar, Nagireddypet, the 2nd respondent. The latter issued a certificate, to the effect that Ac.3.00 guntas, and Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.498/1 of Nagireddypet village, do not belong to Government, and that according to Kasarapahani of 1954-55, it is patta land. The Joint Collector, Nizamabad, the 1st respondent, issued proceedings dated 13-12- 2007, informing respondents 2 and 3, that the land in Sy.No.498 is a Poramboke Government land. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri A. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, since more than half a century, the land in Sy.No.498/1 was recognized and treated as patta land. He contends that the basic and fundamental record, viz., Kasarapahani, of the year 1954-55, also depicts that it is a patta land, and that there was no justification for the 1st respondent to state that it is a Government land. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the 1st respondent verified the record and formed an opinion, that the land belongs to Government. He contends that if the petitioners feel aggrieved by the impugned order, they have to file a suit for necessary declaration. Certification of the nature of the land became necessary, in the context of the proposal to sell the land. The scope of Section 22- A of the Act was widened, and even in the absence of any notification, which was contemplated under the un-amended provision, registration is barred, in case the subject-matter of the document is classified as Government land. The Recording Authority for the lands happens to be the Mandal Revenue Officer. When approached by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent issued certificate dated 07-04-2007, to the effect that, two bits of land, viz., Ac.2.30 guntas and Ac.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.498/1 of Nagireddypet, is not Government land, and that as per Kasarapahani of the year 1954-55, it is patta land. That should have concluded the issue, and the controversy should have ended there. However, the Registering Authority, the 3r d respondent insisted that the certification must be done by the District Authorities of the Revenue Department. The District Collector addressed letter dated 27-08-2007 to the 1st respondent, to verify the record, and issue certification. A perusal of the order dated 12-09-2007 discloses that, even according to it, the land was recorded as patta land in the Kasarapahani, as well as in the pahanies for the subsequent years. After recording this fact, the 1st respondent suddenly made an observation, that it is Government land. The letter dated 13-12-2007 reads as under: “The attention of Tahsildar, Nagireddypet was invited over the subject matter. Further, on examining Nagireddypet Village Sethwar, the land to the extent of Ac.96.15 gts in Sy.No.498 is recorded as poramboke Government land. In this land, assignment pattas were granted. However, instead of mentioning as Laoni Patta/Assignment Patta, it was wrongly mentioned as Patta. In the subsequent years, the land in Sy.No.498 was divided into bits and patta is being shown. Hence, the Tahsildar, Nagireddypet and Sub- Registrar, Yellareddy are hereby informed that the land in Sy.No.498 is a poramboke Government land but not a patta land”. Except expressing an opinion, which is not based on record, the 1st respondent did not furnish the reasons, as to how the entries in the revenue records are incorrect. For all practical purposes, he just ignored the records of his own department, and such a course is totally impermissible. There is another strong factor, that militates against the impugned order. The vendor of the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4582 of 2008. The character of the land was one of the issues in that writ petition. The Joint Collector, who figured as respondent No.2, filed a counter-affidavit, in that writ petition. There also he admitted that the land, held by Sri Venkatarami Reddy in Sy.No.498; is a patta land. It was mentioned that appropriate steps would be taken by the Government, to retrieve the land, in accordance with law. It is not even pleaded that any such steps were taken. The result is that the land possesses the same character, viz., patta land. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to take into account the certificate dated 07-04-2007, issued by the 2nd respondent, as and when the petitioners present any document for registration. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt.03-02-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO