THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14109 of 2011 ORDER: The action of the second respondent, in not releasing sale deeds bearing Nos.1536/2011, 1534/2011 and 1535/2011 presented for registration on 28.04.2011, relating to Ac.0.80½ cents of land in R.S.No.223/2 (old Sy.No.87) of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Facts, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are that land admeasuring Ac.3.22 cents, in old Sy.No.87 correlated to R.S.No.223/2 of Madhurawada Village, hitherto formed part of the Vizianagaram Zameen Estate. It was taken over by the government under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. The said land originally belonged to Sri Karamchetti Subbaraidu who sold it to Sri P. Pothanna who, in turn, alienated the land through sale deed 25.03.1911 to Sri Atchanna who, subsequently, mortgaged it on 07.12.1915. As he failed to discharge the debts, Sri Atchanna sold the land to Baipalli Venkata Thataji through registered sale document No.1161/1920 dated 04.10.1920. The said land is said to be in continuous possession and enjoyment of the family members of Baipalli Venkata Thataji ever since 1930. Patta is said to have been granted on 01.08.1986, in S.R.11 (a)/2/86-VSP, holding that the registration related to three pieces of land. The Primary authority, (the Director of Survey and Settlements, Hyderabad) initiated suo motu proceedings, under Section 5(2) of the Estates Abolition Act which was, subsequently, dropped vide proceedings dated 15.06.1995. Aggrieved thereby, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam filed a revision petition, under Section 7(d) of the Estates Abolition Act, before the Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad who, by order dated 11.06.2003, dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner asserts that the order of Commissioner of Appeals became final, and was not subjected to challenge. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land from the legal heirs of Sri Baipalli Venkata Thataji; and, when he sought registration thereof and desired to know the value of the property for payment of stamp duty, the second respondent refused to receive the documents on the ground that it was government land, and not private patta land; and a notification, under Section 22-A (1) and (2) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), was issued prohibiting registration of such lands. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner and others filed W.P.No.30561 of 2010 and this Court by order 07.12.2010, while noting the petitioner’s claim of having title over the land in question, disposed of the Writ Petition directing the second respondent to receive the documents that may be presented for registration; if he did not find any objection under law for registration, he should register the documents; and conversely, if he found any objections, he should pass an order, under Section 71 of the Act, and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of such documents. The second respondent had, thereafter, received the documents. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent it is stated that, as per G.O.Ms.No.583 Revenue (Registration.I) Department, dated 04.05.2005, an extent of Ac.3.22 cents in Sy.No.223/2 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam was classified as government land; as per Section 22-A (1)(b), as inserted by A.P. Act 19 of 2007 with effect from 20.06.2007, documents relating to transfer of property, agreement of sale, gift or exchange in respect of immovable property owned by the State or the Central Government, executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered, are prohibited for registration; the land claimed by the petitioner was government land notified in G.O.Ms.No.583 dated 04.05.2005; the proper remedy for him was to question inclusion of this land under Section 22-A of the Act; G.O.Ms.No.583 dated 04.05.2005 was issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by the Registration (A.P Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act 4 of 1999); the validity of A.P. Act 4 of 1999 was questioned in a batch of Writ Petitions which were allowed, and the amendment set aside; consequently, A.P. Act 19 of 2007 was enacted, and Section 22-A was inserted; Section 3 of A.P. Act 19 of 2007, is the validating clause; the earlier notifications issued stood validated thereby; and, therefore, the documents presented by the petitioner for registration were kept pending. Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that no orders, as directed by this Court, were passed under Section 71 of the Act; and, as the documents presented by the petitioner were not released despite stamp duty of around Rs.18.00 lakhs being paid, the petitioner has again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to the second respondent to release the sale documents, executed and presented, in favour of the petitioner; as the pre-amended Section 22-A of the Act was struck down, the notification issued thereunder, in G.O.Ms.No.583 dated 04.05.2005, can no longer be relied upon; and the validating clause in Section 3 of A.P. Act 19 of 2007 has no application. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra and Rayalaseema Areas) would fairly state that the SLP filed by the State Government was dismissed by the Supreme Court and, thereafter, the new Section 22-A was inserted in the Registration Act by A.P. Act 19 of 2007. He would further submit that, in view of the validating clause in Section 3 of the Amending Act, the earlier notification in G.O.Ms. No.583 dated 04.05.2005 revived automatically, and must be deemed to be in force; and as these lands are prohibited from registration under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Act read with the notification issued in G.O.Ms. No.583 dated 04.05.2005, the action of the Registering authority in refusing to release the documents cannot be faulted. The validity of G.O.Ms.No.583 dated 04.05.2005, in respect of Ac.3.22 cents of land in R.S.No.223/2 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam, fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.14228 of 2006 and this Court followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v Basant Nahata[1], and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.14099 of 2003 and batch dated 07.12.2005, wherein Section 22-A of the Registration Act was struck down. In the light of the subsequent judgment of the Division Bench, in W.P. No.17325 of 2005 and batch dated 20.02.2006, this Court, by order dated 13.07.2006, allowed the Writ Petition holding that the impugned notification could not be sustained. Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, as substituted by A.P. Act 19 of 2007 with effect from 20.06.2007, prohibits from registration documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of immovable property owned by the State or Central Government executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so. It is not even the case of the respondents herein that the sale deed in question is being executed on behalf of the Government by an officer not statutorily empowered to do so. Reliance placed on Section 22-A(1)(b) is therefore misplaced. Even otherwise, G.O.Ms.No.583 dated 4.5.2005 whereunder an extent of Ac.3-22 cents in Sy.No.223/2 of Madhurawada village was classified as Government land, has been set aside by this Court in W.P.No.14228 of 2006 dated 13.7.2006. As G.O.Ms. No.583 dated 04.05.2005, which is the very same notification relied upon by the respondents in this Writ Petition, has already been set aside by this Court by its order in W.P. No.14228 of 2006 dated 13.07.2006, the only question which remains to be considered is whether, in view of the validation clause in Section 3 of A.P. Act 19 of 2007, G.O.Ms. No.583 dated 04.05.2005 revived automatically. Section 3 of A.P. Act 19 of 2007 reads thus:- “3. Validation:- Notwithstanding anything in any judgment, decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or any other authority to the contrary no notification declaring that the registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to public policy and the refusal of the same for registration under Section 22-A of the Principal Act during the period with effect from 1st April, 1999 being the date of the commencement of the Registration (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act 4 of 1999) upto the date of the commencement of the Registration (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2006 substituting new Section 22-A in the Principal Act, shall be deemed to be invalid land the refusal for registration of the said document deemed to have been validly refused for registration, and accordingly:- a. no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any Court against the State Government or any person or authority whatsoever for the purpose of registration; and b. no Court shall enforce any decree or order directing to register”. The scope of the very same provision came up for consideration before this Court in T. Yedukondalu v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Stamps and Registration[2]. It was contended therein, on behalf of the State, that the earlier notification, issued under the erstwhile Section 22-A of the Registration Act, would continue to operate consequent upon its amendment by A.P. Act 19 of 2007 in the light of the validation clause in Section 3 of the Amending Act. In this context, this Court observed as under:- “……Without going into the validity of the above validation clause, which is under challenge in separate proceedings pending before this Court, the scope and import of the clause may be noted. The clause merely speaks of validating the notifications issued under the old provision and the refusal to register documents on the basis thereof, between the two stipulated dates 01.04.1999 and the date of substitution of Section 22-A. The clause does not have the effect of validating for all times to come notifications issued under the erstwhile invalidated Section 22-A of the Act of 1908. Once the very foundation for the notification, being the old provision, vanished it is ludicrous to contend that the notification issued on the basis of such provision would continue to survive independently. This aspect is further exemplified by the fact that the Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.786 dated 09.11.1999, in which the subject land in Survey No.956 of Shameerpet Mandal finds mention, speaks of registration of documents pertaining to immovable properties being prohibited on the ground that they are opposed to public policy. As mentioned supra, this ground is no longer available under the substituted Section 22-A of the Act of 1908. It is therefore not open to the respondents to contend that the notification in G.O.Ms.No.786 dated 09.11.1999 stipulating a prohibition as to registration of documents on the ground that they are opposed to public policy continues to operate………..” (emphasis supplied) It is evident from the law laid down in T. Yedukondalu2 that a notification, issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as it stood prior to its being struck down would no longer operate consequent on Section 22-A of the Registration Act being amended by A.P. Act 19 of 2007 despite the validation clause in Section 3 of the Amending Act. As no notification has been issued after Section 22-A of the Registration Act was amended by A.P. Act 19 of 2007, Section 22-A(1)(e) has no application, and no reliance can be placed by the respondents on G.O.Ms. No.583 dated 04.05.2005, which has been struck down, to refuse registration of the sale deeds in question. In any event, mere registration of a sale deed does not, by itself, create title in the transferee, and registration would not preclude the Government from asserting its title and claim the property by availing the appropriate remedy. (Madiga Papamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh[3]). None of the contentions urged by the Learned Government Pleader merit acceptance, and the respondents are not justified in refusing to register and, thereafter, release the sale deeds in question. In the light of the observations made hereinabove, the 2nd respondent shall, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, the Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder, consider registering and releasing the documents in question with a period of four weeks from today. The Writ Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. DATE: 15.09.2011 RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Note: Issue C.C. by one week B/o MRKR [1] (2005) 12 SCC 77 [2] 2011(4) ALD 43 [3] 2011(2) ALD 487