IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11384 of 2008 Between: B.Vijaya Kumar Reddy, S/o. Late Mohan Reddy, R/o. 176/B Ravindranagar Colony, Street No.8 ,Habsiguda Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department Registration-I , Secretariate Hyderabad, Rep by its Principal Secretary, 2 The District Registrar of Assurances, Ranga Reddy District at Moosapet Hyderabad. 3 The Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to declare the Gazette notification vide no.134 dt.10.3.2005 issued by the Government of AP Part 1 through GOMS No.280 Revenue (Registration-1) as illegal void and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to 2 and 3 to entertain the registration of sale deeds to be presented for registration by the petitioner in respect of plots No.30 situated in survey no.160(P), 182(p), & 159(P) of Bachupally village Medchal Mandal Ranga Reddy district and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner claims to be a member of Vasavi Co- operative Housing Society. He was allotted and transferred a plot, through sale deed executed in the year 2001. He intends to sell the plot to others. His grievance is that the third respondent is not receiving the documents for registration, on the basis of a notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.280, dated 09.03.2005, under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). He seeks a consequential direction to respondents 2 and 3 to receive the documents and process them, in accordance with law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The land in Survey No.160 of Bachupally Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was assigned i n favour of an ex-serviceman, by name Sri Narayana, through proceedings dated 30.10.1967, by the then Tahsildar, Medchal. Subsequently, Narayana sold the said land in favour of one Mr.Gnaneshwar, through document No.1617 of 1998. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society purchased this land from Gnaneshwar, through a sale deed, dated 21.03.1998. After obtaining approval for lay out from the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, the Society divided the same into plots and allotted one such plot to the petitioner. The first respondent issued the impugned notification in respect of the land in Survey No.160 of Bachupally Village and various other lands situated in different Villages, in exercise of power under Section 22-A of the Act. Whatever may have been the circumstances, under which the G.O. was issued and the validity thereof till recently, in view of the Judgment, dated 07.12.2005, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.14099 of 2003 & Batch (K. RAMA DEVI V. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD), the G.O. can no longer be held valid. Section 22-A of the Act has been held to be ultra vires. Notwithstanding the Judgment of this Court, setting aside Section 22-A of the Act, if the plot of the petitioner partook the character of assigned land, the prohibition contained under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 would have operated. Even that impediment does not exist in the present case. The reason is that the land was assigned in favour of an ex-serviceman and through its order, dated 11.11.1993, in G.O.Ms.No.1117, the Government permitted the sale of such land, by imposing a condition that the sale must not take place within ten years from the date of assignment. In the instant case, the sale took place 31 years subsequent to the date of assignment. Therefore, respondents 2 and 3 cannot refuse to receive or process the documents presented by the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ petition is allowed, as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J. May 29, 2008 MAS/PNV ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies