HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 15869 OF 2010. DATED 23rd March, 2011. BETWEEN Kasa Venkata Reddy …Petitioner and The State of AP, Rep. by District Collector, Kadapa and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.15869 OF 2010. ORDER: Questioning the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not issuing ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner to alienate his agricultural lands in an extent of Ac.3.01 cents in Sy.No. 87/1 and Ac.4.61 cents in Sy.no. 88 situate in Modameedipalli village of Proddatur Mandal as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the fourth respondent to register the sale executed by the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid lands. One Mandyam Singaracharyulu of Proddutur claims to have inherited the subject lands from his fore fathers He sold the subject lands to Kopparapu Subbaiah and Balaiah under document dated 569 of 1921, dated 11.5.1921. The later in turn sold the subject land under document dated 29.9.1926 to Sri Kandala Narasimha Charlu and Nallam Pedda Nagaian, who in turn, sold the same under document dated 18.8.1942 to Kamisetti Ramaiah. The vendor of the petitioner, Sri Gajula Venkataiah, apart from the other lands, purchased the subject lands from the sons of Kamisetty Ramaiah. Later, the petitioner purchased the subject lands under the registered sale document No. 3213 of 1960, dated 3.8.1960 and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. It is stated that pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued to him in respect of the subject land. It is stated that the petitioner sold Ac.1.00 of land in Sy.No. 87/1 and 88 to Sri Seela Venkata Subbaiah under document No. 1828of 1986, dated 16.4.1986. It is stated that in respect of the part of the subject land measuring Ac.1.00 and Ac.0.84 cents, he executed two sale deeds dated 4.7.2002 and 6.11.2002 in favour of third parties and the same were registered without there being any objection. Thereafter, he intend to sell the remaining land to meet medical expenses and approached the respondent authorities to gather information and came to know that the subject lands are included in the prohibition list sent by the office of the Sub Registrar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Then the petitioner was advised that he must obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the RDO or MRO. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Revenue Officials to obtain No Objection Certificate for alienating the subject lands, however, the Tahsildar vide endorsement dated 17.4.2010 refused to issue No Objection Certificate on the ground that the subject lands belong to Government. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that since the subject land is classified as A.W. (Government Land) as per the R.S.R. availale in the RDO office, No Objection Certificate can be issued. It is further stated that pattadar pass book issued in favour of the petitioner cannot confer title and right over the subject land and the sale transactions took place over the subject land are between the private parties, and the Government is not a party to the said transactions. The fourth respondent filed counter affidavit stating that inasmuch as the Tahsildar, Proddatur has furnished list of Assigned/Government lands situate in Modameedipalli village in Form I as per Section 22(A)(1) of the Registration Act wherein the subject land figured in the list, the registration in Sy.Nos. 87 and 88 of the said village is prohibited. Heard both sides. Perused the case file. Prohibition of registration of documents as permitted by law is relatable to Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. In so far as the government Lands are concerned, the prohibition is traceable to Clause (e) of Section 22-A of the Act. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, for the legal embargo to come into operation, there must be a notification issued by the State Government detailing the lands in which it has interest. Admittedly, no such notification has been issued in the present case. This Court while dealing with the similar issue in Syed Munaf Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa ( 2010 (3) UPLJ 134 (HC)) has held as under: “As regards the plea of the respondents that Rule 4 of the Rules of 2007 has operation in the present case, the said Rule may be examined. Rule 4 reads as under: “4. The District Collector or the Authorised Officer not below the rank of Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar shall furnish the particulars of lands assigned in his jurisdiction in Form No.III to the Registering Officer concerned, within (forty five) 45 days from the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) (Amendment) Act, 2007 and further continue to furnish such particulars in the same proforma whenever new assignments are made from time to time.” Bare perusal of the aforestated Rule demonstrates that it pertains to furnishing a list of assigned lands falling within the jurisdiction of the District Collector/Tahsildar, as the case may be. The said Rule does not authorize the revenue authorities to furnish a list of lands which they claim to be Government lands basing on the entries in the revenue records. In the present case, except for stating that entries in the Village Account R.S.R. of Pemmadapalle Village indicate the land in Survey No.364 as Government land, there is no other basis for the revenue authorities to stake a claim over the lands. To the contrary, the evidence on record, being registered transactions dating back to 1933, clearly negates the unilateral claim of the revenue authorities that this land is Government land. It is of course for the Government to assert and prove its title if it chooses to do so, in a properly constituted proceeding before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Without doing so, 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(2009 (3) ALD 802) K.M.KAMULLA BASHA v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR W.P.Nos.27249 & 28393 of 2007 dated 16.02.2009 MEDA SUBBARAYUDU v. SUB-REGISTRAR, RAYACHOTY(W.P.No.11675 of 2008 dated 30.07.2008) and S.ZAKHIR v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR ((W.P.No.19419 of 2008 dated 16.02.2009). Thus, Prohibition of registration of documents is traceable to Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. With regard to Government land, the prohibition is relatable to clause (e) of Section 22-A thereof. Therefore, to press into service the prohibition clause, there must be a notification issued by the State Government mentioning the lands in which it has interest. Admittedly, no such notification as contemplated under Section 22-A(2) of the Act of 1908 is issued in respect of the subject. The second and third respondents wholly place reliance on the mere entries in the revenue records and classification of the subject land as Government land (AWID). Basing on the same, the second respondent sent a communication to the fourth respondent, marking a copy to the first respondent, enclosing therewith a list of assigned and government lands pertaining to Modameedipalli village. De hors the mere entries in the revenue records, there is no other basis for the revenue authorities to stake a claim over the subject land as its own land. To the contrary, the evidence on record, being registered transactions took place from the year 1921, manifestly undo the tall claim of the revenue authorities that the subject land is of Government land. The issuance of pattadar pass books to the predecessors- in-title clearly indicates that the subject land was agricultural land having been cultivated by them for the past several years and the authorities without verifying the nature of the subject land simply classified the same as A.W.I.D. (Government land). That being so, it is not open to the fourth respondent to treat any particular land as Government land basing on the mere communication to that effect by the revenue authorities which is based on the mere entries in the revenue records. In the absence of a notification issued under Section 22-A(2) of the Act of 1908, the action of respondent authorities in classifying the subject land as Government land and refusing to receive and register the documents in respect of the subject land is unsustainable in law. In view of the settled law the communication received from the second respondent not to register the subject land as the same is Government land without there being any record or notification under Section 22-A(2) of the Act of 1908 has no bearing on the issue. For the foregoing discussion the Writ Petition is allowed and the fourth respondent is directed to entertain the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject land and process the same for registration subject to compliance of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and Stamp Act, without insisting for production of ‘No Objection Certificate” from the respondents 1 to 3. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 23rd March, 2011. Msnro