The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition Nos.16434, 16447, 16694, 16723, 16724 and 16765 of 2010 Date: 29-09-2010 Common Order: All these Writ Petitions raise common issues. Therefore, they are taken up for hearing and disposal together. The petitioners, who claim to be the owners of certain lands in Survey Nos.122, 125, 557/1, 585 and various sub-divisions of 587 of Rayachoti Town and Mandal, Kadapa District, filed these Writ Petitions feeling aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in refusing to entertain the sale deeds presented by them for registration in respect of the said lands. According to the petitioners, the lands in question are private patta lands, in respect of which several transactions have taken place through registered sale deeds ranging from the year 1946 onwards. The petitioners pleaded that when they intended to sell the lands in question to third parties and sought to present the sale deeds executed therefor for registration before respondent No.4, he refused to receive the same on the ground that those lands are included in the list of Government lands, communicated by respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.A/386/2006, dated 24-11- 2006. In the counter-affidavits filed by respondent No.3 in these Writ Petitions, which are identical to each other, it is inter alia stated that the lands in question are classified as Government Lands as per RSR of Rayachoti Village and that while the lands covered by Survey Nos.122 and 125 were assigned in favour Smt.Peetla Venkatamma and Sagabala Subbanna respectively, the remaining lands were assigned in favour of Smt.Tumman Byrunnisa Bee, wife of Papa Khan of Rayachoty Village. It is, however, admitted therein that the said lands have been alienated under several transactions. It is further averred that as the lands in question were originally assigned, their transfer is prohibited under the provisions of the A.P.Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the 1977 Act’). Along with the counter- affidavits, respondent No.3 filed copies of No.3 adangals. Column No.6 thereof shows that the lands in question are patta lands. A perusal of the copy of the RSR shows that the lands covered by Survey Nos.122 and 125 are tope lands whereas the remaining lands are waste lands. Respondent No.3 has not filed any material, much less deeds of assignment stated to have been made in favour of Smt.Peetla Venkatamma, Sagabala Subbanna and Smt.Tumman Byrunnisa Bee. Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), provides for prohibition of registration of certain documents. Under sub-clause (1) (b) of the said provision, the 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 the Central Government and executed by persons other than those, who are statutorily empowered to do so are prohibited from registration. Under sub-clause (1) (e) thereof any documents or class of documents pertaining to the properties of the Central and the State Governments, local bodies, educational, cultural, religious and charitable institutions etc., may be included in a notification to be published under Section 22-A of the Act. In the instant cases, it is not in dispute that no notification, as envisaged in Section 22-A of the Act, has been published. To attract sub-clause (1) (e) thereof, the respondents shall show that the lands in question belong to the State or the Central Government, or that the same are assigned lands, whose transfer is prohibited under the provisions of the 1977 Act. As noted above, though a stand is taken by respondent No.3 in the counter-affidavits filed in these Writ Petitions that the lands in question were originally assigned in favour of Smt.Peetla Venkatamma, Sri Sagabala Subbanna and Smt.Tumman Byrunnisa Bee, no material is filed in support thereof. Even if there were any such assignments, the details regarding the year in which the same were made and the condition prohibiting alienation of the lands, if any contained in the deeds of such assignment, have not been disclosed. Unless such a condition exists in the deeds of assignment, the provisions of the 1977 Act are not attracted. As regards the claim made by the respondents that the lands in question are classified as Government Lands, the same is again contradicted by the entry made in column 6 of the copy of No.3 adangal, filed by respondent No.3, wherein the lands in question are shown as patta lands. No doubt, in the RSR copies filed by respondent No.3 along with the counter-affidavits those lands are shown as tope/waste lands. This entry by itself is not conclusive as regards the title over the property. In the face of the admission made by respondent No.3, in the counter-affidavits filed in these Writ Petitions, that the lands in question were subjected to several transactions through registered documents, I do not find any justification whatsoever for respondent No.4 to refuse the documents executed and presented by the petitioners for registration in respect of the same lands. The law is well settled that mere registration of a document does not confer a better title to the transferee than the one, which the transferor holds. If the Government is of the opinion that the lands in question belong to it, it can always claim the same though appropriate Court of law and mere registration of the documents, executed in respect thereof, by respondent No.4 would not in any manner take away its right as such. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petitions are allowed. Respondent No.4 is directed to receive and register the documents, if and when presented by the petitioners, subject to their complying with the legal formalities under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Registration Act, 1908. As a sequel, WPMP.Nos.20693, 20716, 21039, 21074, 21120 and 21073 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, are disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 29th September, 2010 lur