THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 1602 of 2008 Dated: 27.10.2010 Between: G.V.Seshayya, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 1602 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner claims title and possession in respect of Ac.5.30 cents situated in Sy.No.190 and 190/2 of Sampatipuram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District having purchased the same under a registered deed dated 17.03.1993. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.19489 of 1999 aggrieved by the action the Mandal Revenue Officer, in not granting pattadar pass book in respect of the said land on the ground that Sy.No.190 belonged to the Government. Having regard to the fact that the vendor of the petitioner by name Manikyam had succeeded before the Settlement Officer and Estate Abolition Tribunal and the said order had become final, this Court disposed of W.P.No.19489 of 1999 holding that the petitioner was entitled to issuance of pattadar pass book. Pursuant to the said order, the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Visakhapatnam by proceedings dated 07.03.2003 directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to take appropriate action and accordingly, the pattadar pass book was issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner had executed a gift deed dated 31.07.2007 in favour of his son S. Ramachandra Rao in respect of Ac.2.30 cents of land situated in Sy.No.190/2. When the said document was presented for registration, the 3rd respondent, by notice dated 18.08.2007 called upon the petitioner to explain as to why the registration should not be refused in view of G.O.Ms.No.50 Revenue (Registration-I) Department dated 10.01.2005 issued under Section 22-A (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’) whereunder Sy.No.190 was notified as Government land. Immediately, the petitioner gave a reply stating that the Estate Abolition Tribunal had upheld the title of the petitioner’s vendor and the same was confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.19489 of 1999. Without considering the said explanation submitted by the petitioner in proper perspective, 3rd respondent by endorsement dated 07.09.2007 refused the registration of the document presented by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. It is contended in the counter affidavit that as against the order passed by the 3rd respondent, a statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 72 of the Act and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. So far as the merits of the case, it is contended that since the registration of any document in respect of the land in Sy.No.190 has been prohibited under the notification dated 10.01.2005 issued under Section 22-A (1) of the Act, the 3rd respondent is bound by the same and therefore, the registration has rightly been refused. Having considered the very same contention raised by the respondents in the earlier round of litigation, this Court in W.P.No.19489 of 1999 held as under: “ I have perused the order passed by the Settlement Officer as well as Estates Abolition Tribunal. The facts noticed hereinabove stand unrebutted, that the District Judge exercising his powers under Section 15(2) of the Act ordered issue of patta to Manikyam. Therefore, there is no justification in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner may again approach MRO with copy of the order dated 27.04.1977 passed by the Estates Abolition Tribunal. The MRO shall consider the same in the light of the fact that no appeal is preferred against the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal and the order has become final. As and when the petitioner produced order of Estates Abolition Tribunal, the MRO shall pass appropriate orders within three weeks thereafter. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.” The material available on record shows that in terms of the said order the District Collector directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, to make the necessary enquiry and to issue the pattadar pass book. It is not disputed before this Court that the pattadar pass book was subsequently issued to the petitioner in respect of the land situated in Sy.NO. 190 and 190/2. In the light of the admitted facts, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not open to the respondents now to contend that the land in question is the Government land. However, the fact remains that in the notification dated 10.01.2005 issued under Section 22-A (1) of the Act, the entire extent of Acs.34.97 cents of land in Sy.No.190 has been shown as Assessed Waste Dry and the registration of any document of the said land has been prohibited as opposed to public policy. Learned Government Pleader states that any request for de- notification of the land covered by such notification under Section 22-A (1) has to be considered by the 2nd respondent-District Collector and on being satisfied that the land in question does not continue to be the Government land, the District Collector would pass appropriate orders for de-notification. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the 2nd respondent-District Collector with a request to de-notify the land in question in the light of the order dated 09.01.2003 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19489 of 1999 which became final and was also acted upon. If any such representation is made, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 27.10.2010 KLP