HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22643 of 2010 Date 20.10.2010 Between: G.D.Gopi. ..... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P., rep. By the District Registrar, Chittoor District, Chittoor and others. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner :Sri D.Seshadri Naidu Counsel for the Respondents :Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22643 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in registering the sale deed dated 20.02.2010 executed by the petitioner in favour of one G.Savithri W/o. V.Loknadha Reddy in respect of Ac.4.65 cents in Sy.No.251/1, Greamspet Village, Chittoor Municipality No.71, Chittoor District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to register the sale document. The petitioner averred that the above-mentioned land belonged to one Munemma @ Nagalakshmi W/o. late N.Gopala Krishna, who is his grandmother. The petitioner’s grandmother acquired the said property through a registered gift deed dated 16.11.1967 executed by her paternal uncle by name Tulasi Naidu. The petitioner claimed that his grandmother along with her son Sri G.Doraswamy executed a registered gift deed dated 18.06.2000 in his favour. On 20.02.2010, the petitioner received a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards sale consideration from the proposed vendee and executed the sale deed on the same day. When the said sale deed was presented before respondent No.2, the petitioner has received communication from the said respondent to the effect that the land is included in the prohibited property list for registration. The petitioner specifically averred that the proceedings dated 06.01.2007 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chittoor District, communicated to respondent No.2 reveals that an extent of Ac.11.56 cents in Sy.No.251 of Greamspet Village, Chittoor District was originally classified as ‘government dry’ and subsequently sub-divided and assigned to the landless poor persons, that the said communication further reveals that the assignments were made in the year 1929 and that the D-form patta granted at that point of time did not contain condition of prohibition on alienation. The petitioner, therefore, pleaded that inclusion of the land in question in the prohibited list is illegal and arbitrary. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that the land comprised in Sy.No.251/1 was sub-divided on 06.03.1929 and that as far as the land in Sy.No.251/2 is concerned, the land admeasuring Ac.0.13 cents was assigned to one Tulasi Naidu under DKT patta No.1014/57 dated 29.02.1957. He further submitted that similarly an extent of Ac.5.00 in the same sub-division was granted to one Annamalai under DKT patta No.1034/57 dated 18.01.1958. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader is unable to state whether the land in Sy.No.251/1 was an assigned land and, if so, when the same was assigned. In my opinion, unless the land is held to be either government land or assigned land, which contains prohibition on alienation, respondent No.2 cannot refuse to register the document in question. From the assertion made by the petitioner in his affidavit, it appears that the land was assigned in the year 1929. In spite of this assertion, the respondents are unable to place any record to show that the land is not an assigned one and the same continues to vest in the government. In the light of this fact, I am of the opinion that respondent No.2 cannot refuse to register the document on the purported ground that it is included in the prohibited list. If the government feels that the land belongs to it, it is always entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings to assert its title and recover its possession in accordance with law. Mere registration does not either divest title from the government if it has one or confer a better title on the purchaser than the vendor had. For the above-mentioned reasons, respondent No.2 is directed to register the document presented by the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are, however, left free to take appropriate steps to assert their title at their option in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, WPMP.No.28867 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:19.10.2010 usd