IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO: 18491 of 2008 Between: 1 K.Pandu Ranga Redy S/o.Naranhari Reddy Eliminedu(V) Ibrahipatnam(M) R.R District 2 K.Bhadra Reddy S/o.Naranhari Reddy Eliminedu(V) Ibrahipatnam(M) R.R District 3 M.D.R Real Estate & Builder P. Ltd A Company Incorpated under the Companies act rep.by its Managing Director Dist rep.by its Managing Director M.Dayanand Reddy S/o late Bhoopal Reddy R/o. Eliminedu (V) Ibrahimpatnam (M) R.R District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 State of A.P by Principal Seretary (Revenue) Seretariat Saifabad Hyderabad 2 District Collector Ranga Reddy District Lakdika Pool Hyderabad 3 Director of Town & Country Planning Govt of A.P 640 A.C Guards,Hyderabad .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in notifying the private patta land admeasuring Ac 10-22 gts in Sy.No.106 of Eliminedu (V) Ibrahimpatnam(M) Ranga Reddy District in the Notification in G.Ms No.240 Revenue (Registration I) Dt 5-3-2004 published in A.P Gazette(Extraordinary) dt 5-12-2004 by exercising powers u/s 22A of Indian Registration act of 1908 as mentioned by AP Amendments act 4 of 1999 and act 19 of 2007 and thereby the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in not considering the petitioner's request for issuance of No Objection Certificate and approval of lay out respectively in respect of land in Sy No.106 Eliminedu(V) as illegal arbitrary contrary to law without Jurisdiction and violative of Article 14;21; and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the Notification in respect of Sy No.106 admeasuring Ac 10-20 gts of Eliminedu (V) Ibrahimpatnam(M) Ranga Reddy District and further direct the respondents No.2and to issue no objection Certificate and approval the lay out in 106 of Eliminedu (V) Ibrahimpatnam(M) Ranga Reddy District in the interest of justice and fair ply and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.B.VENKAT RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: The petitioners filed this writ petition questioning the action of respondent No.1 in notifying the private patta land admeasuring Ac.10.22 gts. in Sy.No.106 of Eliminedu Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the notification in G.O. Ms. No.240, Revenue (Registration I), dated 5.03.2004, published in A.P. Gazette (Extraordinary), dt.5.12.2004, by exercising powers under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, as amended by A.P. Amendment Acts 4 of 1999 and 19 of 2007, and thereby the action of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in not considering the petitioners’ request for issuance of “No Objection Certificate” and approval of lay out respectively, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to set aside the said notification issued by respondent No.1 in respect of the land in question and direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to issue “No Objection Certificate” and approve the layout made therein. Petitioner Nos. 3, who swore to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of land in an extent of Acs.12.36 gts. out of Acs.16.32 gts. in Sy.No.106 of Eliminedu Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 28.10.1996 vide Document No. 2120 of 1996 by tracing their title from the original owner, namely Manchi Reddy. Thereupon, the names of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were also mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks also issued. Petitioner No.3 further states that they acquired title in respect of land in an extent of Acs. 3-33 gts. in the above said land, and are in possession and enjoyment of the same. He states that with a view to jointly develop the land, they submitted application seeking permission for conversion of the land use in question from agricultural to non-agricultural to Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District (East) Division, who in File No.A/53/2007, has accorded permission for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural. Thereafter, he states that they made application dated 22.04.2008 to respondent No.2, namely the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, for issuance of “No Objection Certificate” in respect of the land in question, and one other application to respondent No.3, namely the Director of Town and Country Planning, for approval of a lay out in the land in question and other lands of the same village. He further states that the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam, vide letter No.B/1057/2008, dated 30.05.2008 intimated to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy (East) Division, that the land in Sy.No.106 to an extent of Acs.10.20 gts. is a patta land, but it was wrongly notified a Government land in the notification issued under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. That the Revenue Divisional, Ranga Reddy (East) Division, subsequently vide his letter, dated 11.06.2008, has intimated to respondent No.2, namely the District Collector, stating that the land in Sy.No.106 of Eliminedu Village, totally admeasuring Acs.16.32 gts., is a patta land, and that the land in the said survey number was wrongly notified in the notification issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as Government land showing the land in the said survey number as Acs.10.20 gts. While so, he states that respondent No.3 addressed letter, dated 19.07.2008 to the Sarpanch, Eliminedu Gram Panchayat, stating that “wrongly or rightly the Sy.No.106 has been notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act as Government land. Hence, it requires de- notification, as private land, to approve the lay out. The petitioners state that they came to know that respondent No.1 issued G.O. Ms. No. 240, Revenue (Registration-I) Department, dated 05.03.2004 in exercise of powers under sub- section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, as amended by Amendment Act 4 of 1999, whereunder the land in Sy.No.106, in an extent of Acs.10.20 gts. of Eliminedu village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was notified as government land, which was also published in the official gazette on 05.12.2004. Hence, questioning the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in notifying the private land of the petitioners as government land, and the action of respondent No.2 in not considering their application for grant of “No Objection Certificate”, and the action of respondent No.3 in not approving the layout, they filed the present writ petition. The matter was adjourned on several occasions at the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Despite adjourning the matter as requested, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not filed their counter affidavit. However, respondent No.3, namely the Director of Town and Country Planning, filed counter affidavit reiterating the stand taken by him that unless the notification issued in G.O. Ms. No. 240 dated 5.03.2004, published in A.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 5.12.2004, issued by respondent No.1 is modified or altered or set aside, he has no authority whatsoever to examine the application of the petitioners for grant of layout. He contended that unless and until the land of the petitioner, is de-notified from the notification and declared as private land and the Sarpanch submits proposal to that effect, he cannot consider the same and pass appropriate orders. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the last occasion submitted that mistake had crept in, in notifying the land in question, as government land. He submitted that the government has reviewed the matter, and they would pass appropriate shortly. Recording the said stand taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, the matter was adjourned to today. However, despite taking such a stand, respondent No.1, neither filed counter to that effect nor passed any orders, de-notifying the land in question as government land. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that it would take some more time to de-notify the land in question, which was mistakenly notified under Section 22-A of the Act, as government land. He further admitted that following the judgment of the apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Nahata[1], a Division Bench of this Court vide orders dated 07.12.2005, passed in W.P. No. 14099 of 2003 and batch, struck down Section 22-A of the Registration Act, and as a sequel thereto, quashed the Rules framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh for giving effect to the said provision and the notifications issued in exercise of the power conferred thereunder. Since Section 22-A of the Registration Act has been struck down by this Court by a Division Bench of this Court, and having regard to the fact that all consequential notifications for giving effect to the said provisions, were also quashed, and the present notification having automatically stood quashed, I am of the considered opinion that the question of the respondent de-notifying the land in question from the said notification does not arise, for the notifications having already been set aside, the properties notified under the said notifications, stood automatically de-notified and became private properties. Since the property in question had already become private property, by reason of setting aside the notification, respondent No.2 instead of rejecting the application of the petitioner, ought to have considered the same and issued “No Objection Certificate” to the petitioners, and more so when the Revenue divisional Officer, is said to have recommended issuance of the same. Under the circumstances, respondent No.2, namely the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to issue “No Objection Certificate” to the petitioner to enable him to resubmit his application for sanction of layout approval before the Director of Town and Country Planning, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ (N.V.RAMANA, J.) 30th September, 2008 Js/Ksr [1] AIR 2005 SC 3401