IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 7207 of 2007 Between: Eadhara Singaiah, S/o.Subbaiah, R/o.Palukuru(V), Kandukuru(M), Prakasam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer,Cum Land Reforms Tribunal, Kandukur,Prakasam Dist. 4 The Tahsildar, Jarugumilli(M), Prakasam Dist. 5 Swarna Venkateswarlu, S/o.Subbaiah, R/o.Nandanavanam(V), Jarugumilli(M), Prakasam Dist. .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent to vacate from the land of Ac.10.41 cents covered by survey numbers 136,149/1 and 184 of Nandanavam Village and survey number 37 of N.V.V.Kandrika Revenue Village as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, the rules framed there under, offends articles 14,21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respodents not to dispossess him from the said lands and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 7207 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is filed alleging that the respondents are insisting on the petitioner to vacate the land in an extent of Ac.10.41 cents covered by Sy.Nos.136,149/1 and 148 of Nandanavan Village and Sy.No.37 of N.V.V.Kandrika Revenue Village, unlawfully. The petitioner claims to be a lessee of the land in question from the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent, according to the counter-affidavit, filed a declaration under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holding) Act, 1973 by way of C.C.No.2617/Kdk/75, dated.12-04-1994, declaring his entire agricultural holdings. The 5th respondent was declared in the ceiling proceedings to be holding lands in excess of the ceiling limits under the provisions of the Act. Thereafter the 5th respondent appears to have mounted a forensic blitzkrieg before which the State represented by respondent Nos.1 to 3 pleads pathetic helplessness in responding to the 5th respondent’s legal challenges. Despite an order of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kandukur dated.18-04-1994 declaring excess holdings by the 5th respondent till date the State has been unable to take possession of the excess holdings of the 5th respondent for one reason or the other. Initially the 5th respondent filed a Civil Revision Petition No.705 of 1996 before this Court which was disposed of on 03-04-1996 directing that the Land Reforms Tribunal should not refuse to receive the statement of surrender of excess land by the 5th respondent and after receiving the same the Tribunal should verify and make necessary enquiries as to whether the lands proposed to be surrendered or acceptable under sub- Section.5 of Section.10 of the Act. Thereafter the 5th respondent on 24- 04-2006 claimed that there was standing Eucalyptus crop on several of his lands and sought two years time to take possession of the other lands. In another pleading dated.03-02-2007 the 5th respondent agreed to surrender lands in Sy.Nos.136,184,149/1, 37 and 37 to an extent of Ac.10.43 cents which are claimed by the petitioner under a lease agreement with the 5th respondent. In Para.8 of the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent the RDO, Kandukur almost pleads helplessness on the part of the Government pleading that the 5th respondent has been intentionally and purposefully delaying the surrender of excess land on one plea or the other, since 1998. The 3rd respondent contends in this counter that the lease to the petitioner from the 5th respondent is a fraudulent plea and has no basis in fact. In support of his averment in the writ petition to justify occupation of the scheduled land in an extent of Ac.10.42 cents owned by the 5th respondent, the petitioner has filed a Xerox copy of the lease deed dated.23-09-2004. As is apparent from this document it is an unregistered notarized instrument. Section.17(1)(d) of the Registration Act,1908 as amended by the A.P.Act 4/99 makes all leases of immovable property compulsorily registerable. Since the petitioner relies on an unregistered and a merely notarized deed of lease dated.23-09-2004 (entered into after coming into force of the amended provision of Sec.17(1)(d) of the Registration Act), the instrument under which the petitioner claims entitlement to occupation of the land is one that is not recognizable at law. It confers no manner of right on the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner cannot gainfully resist the proceedings taken by the respondents to evict him from his unlawful occupation of the lands in question. There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. __________________ GODA RAGHURJAM,J 24TH MARCH,2008 *TSNR