THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5336 OF 2010 DATED JULY, 2010 BETWEEN P.Venkata Subba Reddy 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.5336 OF 2010 ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of the Sub-Registrar, Rayachoty, Kadapa District, respondent 3, in not entertaining the petitioners’ documents for registration in respect of their land in Survey Nos.540/2, 540/3 and 585 of Mittavandla Palli Village, Rayachoty Mandal, Kapada 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 lands without insisting upon a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the revenue authorities. The petitioners claim title and possession over the subject lands on the basis of the registered documents. They are in a position to trace the lineage of title in respect of this land to a registered transaction dating back to the year 1944. The cause for complaint is that respondent 3 refused to divulge details in respect of the registration of documents pertaining to this land, when they approached him with an intention of alienating the same, on the ground that the subject lands were Government lands and a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the revenue authorities is a condition precedent for receiving any document in respect of the said lands for registration. It is the case of the revenue authorities that the lands in Survey Nos.540/2, 540/3 and 585 of Mittavandla Palli Village are classified as Government lands (Assessed Waste) in the Village Account R.S.R. of Rayachoty Village. Reference is made to Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 2007’) in this regard and it is stated that on the basis of entries in the revenue records the said lands were included in the list of Government lands furnished to respondent 3. The same stand is reflected by respondent 3 in his counter. Prohibition of registration of documents as permitted by law is relatable to Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. In so far as Government lands are concerned the prohibition is traceable to clause (e) of Section 22-A: “22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain documents:- (1) The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namely:-- (a) …………. (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 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. 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 Rayachoty Village indicate the lands in Survey Nos.540/2, 540/3 and 585 as Government lands, 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 1944, 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[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]. 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 Registration Act, 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 Nos.Nos.540/2, 540/3 and 585 of Mittavandla Palli Village, Rayachoty Mandal, Kapada 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