IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 7037 of 1999 Between: N.T.A.Sekhar, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. Flat No.12, Anjana Apartments, Naveen Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by it's Prl.Secretary to Government, Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner , Urban Land Ceilings, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Special Officer & comptent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad. 4 The Sub-Registrar, Kukkatpally, R.R.District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in refusing the document No.2372/96 for reqistration and directing to take delivery of the said document without any valid grounds is unjust, improper and bad and thereby directing the respondents to release the document bearing No.2372/96 with necessary registrating endorsements as the plot of the petitioners in Plot No.24/II admeasuring 600 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.172 of Kukkatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District is outside the purview of the provisions of the Act Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed, in substance, challenging the endorsement of the 4th respondent dated 15-2-1999 intimating the petitioner that the document No. 2/1999 presented by the petitioner for registration has been refused registration and calling upon him to take delivery of the said document. The petitioner also seeks a consequent relief of release of document No. 2372/1996 after registering the same, in respect of plot No. 24/11 of an extent of 600 Sq. yards in Sy.No.172 of Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, claiming that this land is outside the purview of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Ceiling Act’). The case of the petitioner is as under: (1) The petitioner purchased the property in plot No. 24/11 in Sy.No.172 of Kukatpally Village in the approved layout of M/s Bhagya Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., from one Smt B.Lalitha w/o late B.R.Aditya. The petitioner’s vendor, a member of M/s Bhagya Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., (‘the Society’) purchased the property under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 1745/1987 executed by the society on 19-3-1987 and registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy. (2) The Society had purchased a total extent of Ac.9-39 guntas in Sy.No.172 of Kukatpally village under a registered sale deed bearing document no.149/1966 and 150/1966 from the original pattedars M.Ranga Reddy and others. The society having obtained a layout after earmarking into residential plots, developed the layout, enrolled members and registered the plots in favour of its members including the petitioner’s vendor Smt B.Lalitha, as already stated. (3) By the date of coming into force the Ceiling Act, M/s Bhagya Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., was the owner and possessor of the total extent of Ac.9-39 guntas including the area purchased by the petitioner from Smt B.Lalitha. Therefore, the society is exempt from the provisions of the Ceiling Act in view of the provisions of Sec. 19(1)(v) of the Ceiling Act. (4) In view of the above statutory position, the transfer by M/s Bhagya Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., in favour of Smt B.Lalitha, the petitioner’s vendor by a registered instrument and the conveyance of the said property by Smt B.Lalitha in favour of the petitioner also by a registered instrument of sale is outside the purview of the provisions of the Ceiling Act. (5) The petitioner’s vendor Smt B.Lalitha had also issued a notice under Sec. 26 of the Ceiling Act on 9-9-1996 even though there was no necessity for such notice to be issued. (6) The petitioner’s vendor Smt B.Lalitha executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner presented the same for registration before the 4th respondent on 9-9-1996, after having paid Rs.41,500/- towards stamp duty along with deficit stamp duty of Rs.500/- and a registration fee of Rs.1,271/-. (7) The 4th respondent not only failed to accord registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner but also issued the impugned intimation that the document has been refused registration and calling upon the petitioner to take delivery of the said document. Though the petitioner has raised several grounds for impeaching the impugned intimation dated 15-2-1999 issued by the 4th respondent, at oral argument the learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the impugned intimation by the 4th respondent is perverse, as it does not set out any reason for refusing registration. Counters have been filed by the 2nd respondent, the competent authority under the Ceiling Act and by the 4th respondent, the Sub- Registrar, Kukatpally. The 2nd respondent’s counter admits that the petitioner’s vendor Smt B.Lalitha issued a notice under Section 26 of the Ceiling Act seeking permission to alienate the land to an extent of 600 Sq. yards in favour of the petitioner. This was examined and it was observed that the land in Kukatpally village held by P.Prathap Reddy and his family members are under enquiry by the House Committee. The 2nd respondent further states that the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the House Committee directed the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the Ceiling Act not to grant any permission till the enquiry was completed. Therefore, the notice given by Smt B.Lalitha under Section 26 of the Ceiling Act, was rejected on 18-10- 1996 on the ground that Sy.No.172 of Kukatpally village “is included in the House Committee”. The 2nd respondent further avers that Smt B.Lalitha had filed another application on 22-11-1996 seeking reconsideration of the case. This was also rejected on 1-4-1997 on the ground that M/s Bhagya Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., is under enquiry by the House Committee. According to the counter, the petitioner being the purchaser from Smt B.Lalitha is not entitled to purchase the same. The counter-affidavit is totally silent on the plea of the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Section 19 and as M/s Bhagya Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., acquired title to a larger extent of Ac.9-39 guntas even prior to coming into force the Ceiling Act, the society is exempt from the provisions of the Ceiling Act, qua Section 19 of the said Act. Since it is admitted in the 2nd respondent’s counter that Smt B.Lalitha the petitioner’s vendor had issued a notice dated 9-9-1996 under Section 26 of the Ceiling Act, it necessarily follows from the language of Section 26 (2) of the Ceiling Act that where such notice is given under Section 26 (1) of the Ceiling Act, the Special Officer and Competent Authority shall have the first option to purchase such land on behalf of the State Government at a price the modalities of which are stipulated by the Act and if no purchase option is exercised under Section 26 (2) of the Act within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of notice, it shall be presumed that the Competent Authority has no intention to purchase the said land on behalf of the State Government and it shall be lawful for such person to transfer the land to whomsoever he may like. The fact that the House Committee is considering the validity of the transaction in favour of M/s Bhagya Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., from its vendor P.Prathap Reddy and his family members does not suspend the time limit stipulated in Section 26 of the Ceiling Act. At any rate, since the petitioner’s vendor Smt B.Lalitha admittedly sent the notice dated 9-9-1996 under Section 26 of the Ceiling Act, the Competent Authority was required to exercise the option of purchasing the land on behalf of the State Government within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and on failure to do so, Smt B.Lalitha was at liberty to transfer the land unhindered by the provisions of the Ceiling Act. There was, therefore, no reason for the 4th respondent to decline registration. At any rate, the impugned intimation dated 15-2-1999 sent by the 4th respondent to the petitioner while merely records a refusal to register the document presented, does not set out any reason why registration is denied. The 3rd respondent is a public servant exercising public powers with concomitant obligations under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and is required to exercise the powers of registration or refusal to register a document presented in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As the order of refusal tantamounts to an order declining exercise of statutory obligations, the citizen who presents a document for registration after paying stamp duty and registration fee, is entitled Ex Debito Justitiae to know the reasons why the authority refused to exercise its statutory powers. The 4th respondent operates in a public office in a constitutional order of governance and is obligated to record reasons for official acts. Since the endorsement of the 4th respondent dated 15-2-1999 conveying rejection of registration of the document presented by the petitioner, contains no reasons whatsoever, in the considered view of this court, the endorsement dated 15-2-1999 by the 4th respondent and the intimation to the petitioner that he should take delivery of the document constitutes a perverse exercise of the power and discretion by the 4th respondent, beseech invalidation and is accordingly set aside. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not yet taken receipt of the document presented for registration. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue also states that the document continues in the custody of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit purporting to set out reasons why he refused registration and issued the impugned endorsement dated 15-2-1999. The 4th respondent states that he had kept pending the document presented by the petitioner for registration, for want of ULC permission. Since there was no ULC permission granted under Section 26 (2) of the Ceiling Act, the 4th respondent states, he made the endorsement dated 15-2-1999 and communicated the same to the petitioner. The mere circumstance that the 4th respondent has communicated its cryptic decision to the petitioner and supplemented the reasons therefor in the counter-affidavit would not validate the patent invalidity of the impugned endorsement dated 15-2-1999. As succinctly stated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji[1], public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actions and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. The impugned endorsement of the 4th respondent dated 15-2-1999 is an illegal and cryptic order which must perish. It is accordingly quashed. Consequently, the 4th respondent shall treat the document presented by the petitioner on 9-9-1996 being a sale deed executed by Smt B.Lalitha in his favour, as a pending document and shall now consider the said document for registration in accordance with law. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Ceiling Act has since been repealed and, therefore, the obligation to issue a notice under Section 26 of such repealed Act no longer operates. It is not necessary for this Court to pronounce upon this issue. Since the 4th respondent is directed by this Court to consider the document presented by the petitioner for registration in accordance with law, the 4th respondent shall consider the same for registration as directed and shall take an appropriate decision and consequential action expeditiously and in any event within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed as above. There shall however, be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 30th March, 2009. GRR [1] AIR 1952 SC 16