IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.607 of 2010 Between: Smt. K. Anasuya & another. ..... Petitioners AND The State of A.P., rep., by the District Registrar Office, Greamspet, Chittoor & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri D. Seshadri Naidu Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.607 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 23.12.2009 of respondent No.2, whereby he has refused to register the gift deed presented by the petitioners for the land admeasuring Ac.2.43 guntas in Sy.Nos.82-1A, 82-1B1 and 82- 1B9 of Mangasamudram Revenue Village, Chittoor Mandal and District on the ground that the latest prohibited land list furnished by the Mandal Revenue Officer (for short, “the MRO”), Chittoor with the confirmation letter of the Revenue Divisional Officer (for short, “the RDO”), Chittoor includes the abovementioned land in the category of prohibited lands for registration. At the hearing, Sri D. Sheshadri Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners, made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that the successive certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Chittoor on 19.01.2009 and 09.06.2009 apart from a detailed report dated 09.06.2009 submitted to the RDO and report dated 24.06.2009 of the RDO to the District Collector, Chittoor would completely belie the stand of the respondents that the property in question is an assigned land. The learned counsel also sought to place reliance on certain sale deeds, which date back to 1954, to substantiate his contention that the land in question has never been an assigned land. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Chittoor, it is inter alia stated as under: “On verification of list of assigned lands, it is learnt that the land in S.No.82/1B1 extent 0.66 acres was assigned to one Sri J.Krishnaiah vide his office DKT No.321/4/1364, dated 30.04.1969 and the lands in S.No.82/1A1 extent 1.34 acres, S.No.82/1B1 extent 0.68 acres and in S.No.82/1B9 extent 0.29 cents are assigned to one Sri M. Peddabba Naidu son of Chinnabba Naidu vide this office DKT No.121/4/1399 dated 05.04.1999. Further it is submitted that on perusal of DKT file bearing No.121/4/1399 dated 05.04.1990 the above mentioned survey numbers were assigned to Sri Y.Madhava Naidu son of Chinnabba Naidu and on the D Form patta an entry was made by the then MRO, Chittoor dated 07.09.1990 as ‘cancelled’.” In my opinion, in the face of the serious dispute raised by the respondents over the claim of the petitioners that the land is a private patta land and never an assigned land, it is not possible for this Court to delve into this disputed question of fact and render conclusive findings thereon while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed that under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, “the Act”), the petitioners have a remedy of appeal available to the Registrar against the order of refusal of registration by the Sub- Registrar. In my opinion, the appropriate course for the petitioners is to avail the remedy of appeal and they are accordingly permitted to file an appeal before the District Registrar along with all the material on which reliance is being placed by them to show that the lands in question have never been assigned lands and that there is no prohibition or alienation in respect of these lands. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioners, the District Registrar shall consider the same with reference to the relevant record and the material that may be placed by the petitioners and the revenue department, pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of filing of appeal by them. Since limitation for filing the appeal has expired during the pendency of this writ petition and as the petitioners were bonafide pursuing the writ petition, it is appropriate that they are permitted to file the appeal within a period of one month from today. If the appeal is filed within the above stipulated time, the appellate authority shall entertain and adjudicate the same on merits without raising any objection regarding the limitation. Before parting with the case, it is appropriate to note the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order of refusal refers to the land in Sy.Nos.82/1A1 and 82/1B1, as being included in the prohibited list and that the petitioners may be permitted to present another gift deed by excluding the land in the abovementioned two survey numbers. In my opinion, if the petitioners present any gift deed, which does not contain the land in the survey numbers, which are included in the prohibited list, respondent No.2 shall entertain the same and take appropriate action for registration in terms of the provisions of the Act. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.748 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 10.11.2010 ES