THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5338 OF 2010 DATED JULY, 2010 BETWEEN Syed Ahamed And Another. … Petitioners And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, Collectorate Complex, Kadapa. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5338 OF 2010 ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of the Sub-Registrar, Rayachoty, Kadapa District, respondent 3, in not registering the documents in respect of their land in Survey No.545/1 of Rayachoty Sub-Division, Kadapa District, the petitioners filed the present case. They seek a consequential direction to respondent 3 to receive, register and release their documents in respect of the said land without insisting upon a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the revenue authorities. The petitioners claim title and possession over the subject land in Survey No.545/1, Rayachoty Sub-Division, Kadapa District, under registered title documents. It is their case that the Tahsildar, Rayachoty had verified the revenue records and issued them a Certificate dated 28.07.2003 stating that though this property was originally assigned in the year 1955 with a condition of non-alienability, the same was restricted to a period of ten years and accordingly, the land ceased to be Government assigned land after the expiry of the stipulated period of prohibition. While so, it is the complaint of the petitioners that when they decided to sell their land, the Sub-Registrar, Rayachoty, Kadapa District, respondent 3, refused to furnish them information in respect of the registration and stamp duty on the ground that the said land was Government land and that a ‘No Objection Certificate’ would be required from the revenue authorities for proceeding with the registration of documents in respect of such land. The stand put forth by the revenue authorities in their counter is that the land in Survey No.545/1 of Rayachoty Village is classified in the Village Account R.S.R. as Government Land (UAW). Reference is made to Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 and it is stated that on the basis thereof, the subject land had been included in the list of Government lands furnished to the Sub-Registrar, Rayachoty. The same stand is echoed by the Sub-Registrar, Rayachoty, Kadapa District, in his counter. Prohibition of registration of documents as permitted by law is relatable to Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1908’). Section 22-A, to the extent relevant for this case, reads as under: “22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain documents:- (1) The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namely:-- (a) document relating to transfer of immovable property, the alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the State or Central Government; (b) …………. (c) …………. (d) …………. (e) any documents or class of documents pertaining to the properties the State Government may, by notification prohibit the registration in which avowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others which are likely to adversely affect these interests. (2) For the purpose of clause (e) of sub-section (1) the State Government shall publish a notification after obtaining reasons for and full description of properties furnished by the District Collectors concerned in the manner as may be prescribed.” Thus, for the legal embargo to come into operation the registration should either be prohibited under any statute of the State or Central Government under clause (a) or should be covered by a notification issued by the State Government under clause (e) of Section 22-A read with Section 22-A(2) of the Act of 1908. It is not disputed that the original assignment was clothed with a prohibition which was temporally restricted. Non-alienability attaching to the assignment was only for a limited period of ten years. Thereafter, the land ceased to be subject to such restriction. Therefore, the applicability of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1977’) and the Rules framed thereunder, to the subject land does not arise. The certificate dated 28.07.2003 issued by the Tahsildar, Rayachoty, also confirms this view. It is therefore not open to the revenue authorities to take recourse to the Act of 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder to support their contention that as the subject land was assigned at one point of time it would fall foul of the prohibition contained in the Act of 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder. Further, there is no evidence of any notification having been issued by the State under Section 22-A(e) read with Section 22-A(2) of the Act of 1908. In the absence of such notification, basing on the entries in the Village Account R.S.R., it is not open to the revenue authorities to claim that the subject land is a Government land. There is no other evidence to support this stand. It is, of course, for the Government to assert and prove its title to the subject land if it chooses to do so by way of a properly constituted proceeding before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Without recourse to such procedure, it is not open to the revenue authorities or the registration authorities to deny persons claiming rights over such land on the basis of mere revenue entries. The action of the respondents in treating the subject land as Government land and the action of the registration authorities in refusing to receive and register documents in respect of this land is therefore unsustainable in law. I find support for my view in the Judgments of this Court in P.SURESH v. A.P. STATE AND OTHERS[1]; K.M.KAMULLA BASHA v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR[2]; MEDA SUBBARAYUDU v. SUB-REGISTRAR, RAYACHOTY[3] and S.ZAKHIR v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR[4]. It is relevant to note that in S.ZAKHIR this Court was dealing with a similar case where a condition prohibiting alienation for a period of ten years was attached to an assignment of land. As the period of restriction had expired, this Court held that the prohibition under the Act of 1977 would not be applicable. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed holding that there is no legal basis for the registration authorities in insisting upon a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the revenue authorities as a condition precedent for entertaining any document for registration once the prohibition under Section 22-A of the Act of 1908 does not come into operation. It is not open to the registration authorities to treat any particular land as Government land basing on the mere communication to that effect by the revenue authorities which, in turn, is based on mere entries in the revenue records. There shall be a consequential direction to the Sub-Registrar, Rayachoty, Kadapa District, respondent 3, to entertain the documents presented by the petitioners in respect of their lands in Survey No.545/1 of Rayachoty Sub-Division, Kadapa District and process the same for registration in accordance with law. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. ________ JULY, 2010. VGSR [1] 2009 (3) ALD 802 [2] W.P.Nos.27249 & 28393 of 2007 dated 16.02.2009 [3] W.P.No.11675 of 2008 dated 30.07.2008 [4] W.P.No.19419 of 2008 dated 16.02.2009