IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5264 of 2008 Between: Smt. Nadella Jayalakshmi Devi W/o. Vishnu Vardhan R/o. D.No.31-B, Ashoknagar Main Road, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub Registrar, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Govt. A.P., re. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration & Stamps) Depatment, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Tahasildar, Parvada Mandal, Visakhapatnam. .....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 to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not releasing document No.710/2006 which is pending before the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of the Article 14, 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act apart from the contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.1117/ Revenue dt. 11.11.1993 and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MRT.N.MRANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 5264 of 2008 Order: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not releasing the document No. P 710/2006, which is pending before him for registration, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 1117, dated 11.11.1993. According to the petitioner, one late Appa Rao was allotted land admeasuring Ac.3.61 cents, situated in Survey No. 315/12 of Desapatrunipalem village, Parvada Mandal, Visakhapatnam, in the year 1993 under ex-servicemen quota, and to that effect the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Parvada Mandal, also issued pattadar passbook and title deed in his name. The petitioner states that to meet the medical and family needs, the legal heirs of said late Appa Rao, agreed to sell the said land to her, and accordingly executed Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA dated 22.12.2006, and when they presented the said document for registration, the 1st respondent received the same, but did not register the same and kept it pending on the ground that he has to obtain clarification from the revenue authorities. Hence, she filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per G.O. Ms. No. 1117, dated 11.11.1993, ex-servicemen and freedom fighters, who are assigned lands under the said quotas, are entitled to alienate the same after expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment, and since more than ten years had lapsed from the date of assignment of the land in question to late Appa Rao, his legal heirs are entitled to alienate the same, and as such, the sale of the land in question made by the legal heirs of late Appa Rao in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be impermissible or illegal, and as such, the action of the 1st respondent in keeping the document pending without registering it, is illegal and arbitrary. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Pothala Saidamma v. Government of A.P. and another[1]. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. The sustainability of the objection as is taken by the official respondents in the present case with regard to registration of the document on the ground that assigned land is not alienable, and as such, the document executed alienating the assigned land, cannot be registered, was considered by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in its judgment reported in Pothala Saidamma v. Government of A.P. and another. Even though the respondents in the counter filed by them in the said batch of writ petitions, have taken a stand that since the land allotted to the husband of the petitioner is under ex-serviceman quota, and as such, the same having regard to the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 1021, dated 01.10.2003, cannot be alienated, the fact remains, this Court while refusing to sustain the said objection taken by the registering authorities, held as follows: “Basically, such assignments are not in favour of landless poor. Secondly, the Government itself issued G.O. Ms. No. 1117, dated 11.11.1993, permitting the assignees of such land to alienate the same, after expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment. It is not in dispute that the assignment in favour of husband of the petitioner was made on 28.05.1981 and 10 years have already expired. Being the successor of the assignee, the petitioner is entitled to transfer such land. Therefore, the G.O. Ms. No. 1021, dated 01.10.2003, insofar as it relates to land of Ac.5.00 assigned to the husband of the petitioner, shall stand set aside. The 2nd respondent shall entertain the document that may be presented by the petitioner, without reference to the said G.O. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” In view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents agreed that this writ petition also be disposed of by and in terms thereof. Be that as it may, in the instant case the 1st respondent has himself admitted that the land in question is assigned under ex-serviceman quota, and as such, there is no reason for him to refer the matter again for clarification to revenue authorities, and more so when G.O. Ms. No. 1117, dated 11.11.1993, had permitted ex-servicemen and freedom fighters to alienate the lands assigned to them under the said quotas after expiry of ten years from the date of assignment. Be it noted that except for the grounds mentioned under Section 22-A of the Act, the Sub-Registrar has no power to refuse registration of a document, much less on the ground taken by him in the instant case. Since the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, has agreed for disposal of the writ petition in the light of the judgment of this Court in Pothala Saidamma v. Government of A.P., and another (1 supra), I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The writ petition is allowed. The Sub-Registrar shall register the document presented by the petitioner which is pending before him, in accordance with law, particularly in the light of G.O. Ms. No. 1117, dated 11.11.1993 and also the judgment of this Court reported in Pothala Saidamma v. Government of A.P., and another (1 supra), if the same is otherwise in order. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 25.03.2008 Ksr/Nsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} [1] 2007 (6) ALD 160