THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.9904, 9905, 9920 and 9922 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: All these writ petitions can be disposed of by common order in view of the fact that they came to be filed with similar background. The ensuing narration of factual background is with reference to W.P.No.9904 of 2007. The petitioner purchased an extent of Acs.2.00 in survey No.70/20 of Bangarammapalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal in Visakhapatnam District from Smt.Aripaka Ramaneshwari, W/o.Aripaka Penta Rao. Petitioner’s vendor executed sale deed and the same was presented in the office of second respondent for registration. The same was kept pending as P273. The petitioner alleges that his vendor admitted execution of document before second respondent, who processed the document for registration in obedience to orders of this Court in W.P.No.5700 of 2007, dated 22.03.2007. However, the document was not registered and released in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. On 25.04.2007, second respondent communicated reasons for refusal which are as under. The document purporting to be a deed of Sale for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- executed by Smt.Aripaka Ramaneswari, W/o Penta Rao in favour of Sri Chennuboyina Ramanayya, S/o Kondayya affecting the property of an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in survey No.70/20 of Bangarammapalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal and the document was presented for registration in this office on 13-07-2006 and it was kept pending registration for clarification as regards the classification of the aforesaid mentioned Survey Number as it was classified as ‘D’ patta lands as per this office records and was classified as “Dry” as per the Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sabbavaram. In reply to this office further clarification addressed to the Tahsildar, Sabbavaram vide letter dated 16-04-2007 it was clarified by the Tahsildar, Sabbavaram vide letter Rc.No.790/2006/A, dt.17- 04-2007 that the Survey No.70/20 of Bangarammapalem Village is “Assigned Land”. Accordingly the document affecting the property in Survey No.70/20 of Bangarammapalem Village is liable to be refused to registration and I hold that the “document is refused” with reference to the provisions of Section 5 of the A.P.Assigned Land Act. Dated:25-04-2007 Sd/- xxxx Sub-Registrar, Sabbavaram The writ petition No.9904 of 2007 is filed assailing the said order. The factual background in all the cases are similar and similar orders are passed by Sub Registrar, Sabbavaram. Other writ petitions are filed assailing the similar orders. At the stage of admission itself, Tahsildar, Sabbavaram (third respondent) and Sub Registrar, Sabbavaram (second respondent) filed counter affidavits. The gist of Tahsildar’s counter is that the land in survey No.70 of Bangarammapalem Village is a Government land classified as ‘Gayalu’ and that the same was assigned to landless poor persons. It is also stated that Tahsildar addressed a letter on 07.11.2006 to second respondent stating that the land in survey No.70 is Government land. The counter affidavit further refers to proceedings taken under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Assigned Lands Act, for brevity) but petitioner’s vendor erroneously obtained Pattadar Pass Books showing it as Zeroithi land. In the counter affidavit filed by the Sub Registrar, Sabbavaram, it is stated that after receiving document presented by petitioner, on 13.07.2006 Sub Registrar addressed a letter to Mandal Revenue Officer, who addressed letters on 03.01.2007 and 17.04.2007 informing that the land in survey No.70 is assigned land. He also furnished list of assigned lands with reference to Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Section 5 of Assigned Lands Act authorises District Collector to furnish registration officer within forty five (45) days of coming into force of A.P.Act No.8 of 2007 a list of lands assigned to landless poor persons. In the absence of any such list furnished by District Collector, second respondent cannot refuse registration. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Dr.G.Shiva Prasad Reddy v District Collector, Visakhapatnam District[1]. He nextly contends that the petitioner’s vendor and her vendor had valid title, who obtained necessary record of rights and therefore, registration cannot be refused on the ground that it is Government/assigned land. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) submits that when once the land is shown to be assigned land governed by Assigned Lands Act, registration is prohibited under Section 5(2) of Assigned Lands Act. Secondly, he submits that petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Sections 72 and 77 of Registration Act, and therefore, writ petition would not lie. Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act prior to its amendment, reads as under. 5.Prohibition of registration of assigned lands:- Notwithstanding anything in the Registration Act, 1908 (C.A.16 of 1908) on or after the commencement of this Act, no Registering Officer shall accept for registration any document relating to the transfer of, or the creation of any interest in, any assigned land included in a list of assigned lands in the district which shall be prepared by the District Collector and furnished to the Registering Officer except after obtaining prior permission of the District Collector concerned for such registration. In Dr.G.Shiva Prasad Reddy (supra), question arise as to whether in the absence of any specific power conferred on District Collector, the former can authorize the latter to communicate the list of assigned lands to registering authority. This Court having noticed that the District Collector had no power to delegate to an officer like Mandal Revenue Officer, laid down as under. Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act contains non obstante clause. It renders Registration Act in applicable to the assigned lands. No Registering Officer can accept registration of any documents relating to transfer of assigned land, provided, such assigned land is included in the list of assigned lands in the districts prepared by the District Collectors. Here again, clearly, the power is vested only in the District Collector and the power to delegate to any authorized officer is very conspicuous by its absence. Indeed, Rule 4 of the Rules, on which abundant emphasis is laid, refers to only the duty of the assigning officer to send a copy of the assignment order to the Registration Department, and it does not in any manner amount to District Collector delegating the power under Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act to the “authorized officer”. Therefore, in the absence of specific legislative sanction; authorizing the delegatee to further delegate the letter of the District Collector dated 31.01.2006 advising all the Mandal Revenue Officers in the districts to supply updated list of assigned lands is ultra vires the power of the District Collector under Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act. On this ground alone, the impugned letter/proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer should suffer from incurable infirmity. However, it is always open to the District Collector to send/notify the list of assigned lands to the Registering Officers in the district and continue to update such list. This Court also hastens to add that having regard to the purpose for which the Legislation was made, and also having regard to Rule 4 of the Rules, if the Mandal Revenue Officer sends a copy of the assignment order to the Registering Officer, the Registering Officer should prevent registration of any document relating to transfer of assigned lands. After the Judgment of this Court, Section 5 was substituted which reads as under. 5. Prohibition of registration of Assigned Lands:- (1) The District Collector or any other Officer, not below the rank of a Mandal Revenue Officer authorized by him in this behalf, shall within 45 (forty five) days from the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) (Amendment) Act, 2007 furnish to the Registering Officer having jurisdiction over the area a list of lands assigned to the landless poor persons with all particulars of assignment and further furnish such particulars of new assignment forthwith. (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Registration Act, 1908, no Registering Officer shall accept for registration of any document relating to the transfer of or creation of any interest in any assigned lands as furnished in the list under sub-section (1). The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 promulgated vide G.O.Ms.No.281, dated 02.02.1978 were superceded by the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules 2007 (the Rules, for brevity), which were promulgated vide G.O.Ms.No.208, dated 22.02.2007. Rule 2(b) of the Rules defines ‘authorised officer’ means ‘the officer authorised by the District Collector not below the rank of Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar under sub-section (1) of Section 4 and sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act’. Reading Section 5(1) of the Assigned Lands Act and Rule 2(b) of the Rules together, it becomes clear that only an officer above the rank of Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar who is specifically authorised by District Collector can furnish list of assigned lands to registering officer, in which event, Section 5(2) of Assigned Lands Act prohibits registration. In this case, a specific plea is raised in paragraph 8 of affidavit accompanying the writ petition about this aspect of the matter. In the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar (third respondent), the fact that there is no delegation of power under Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act read with Rule 2(b) of the Rules is not specifically denied. Therefore, it is not competent for the Mandal Revenue Officer to communicate list of assigned lands. Secondly, in plain terms, Section 5(1) of the Assigned Lands Act enables the District Collector or the authorised officer not below the rank of Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar to communicate list of assigned lands to registering officer within forty five (45) days from the date of registration. The counter affidavit is silent on this aspect also. As Sub Registrar did not examine the document with reference to Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act and Rules 26 and 58 of the Andrha Pradesh Registration Rules but merely refused registration based on the letter of Mandal Revenue Officer, this Court is of considered opinion that the matter should be considered by the Tahsildar once again. Of course, it is always open to Registering Officer to seek clarification from the Tahsildar/District Collector having regard to the factual background of the case. In the result, for the above reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order of second respondent, dated 25.04.2007 communicating ‘reasons for refusal’ is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the four sale deeds submitted by petitioner in accordance with the Registration Act and pass necessary orders under Section 71 of the Registration Act. If the petitioners are aggrieved, it shall be open to them to prefer appeal before District Registrar, Visakhapatnam under Section 72 of the Registration Act and if adverse order is passed by appellate authority, it shall be open to them to file suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16.12.2008 pln [1] 2007 (2) ALD 519