IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 358 of 2009 BETWEEN: 1) Cheruku Chandrasekhar Reddy S/o. C. Ramakrishna Reddy, R/o. D.No.12-469-9-4, Nehru Nagar, Madanapalle Town, Chittoor District, Now R/o.D.No.15, P&T COlony, Raithibowly, Hyderabad. 2) K. Papi Reddy S/o. Late Subbi Reddy R/o. D.No.2/40, Thalla Subbanna Colony, Kotha Naidu, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 3) K. Lakshmi Devi W/o. K. Gopal Reddy, R/o. D.No.13-145-2B, A.V. Naidu Colony, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 4) A. Sailakumari W/o. Reddy Raja Reddy, R/o. Laddigam (V), Chowdepalle Mandal, Chittoor District. 5) S. Nagaraja S/o. Ramachandraiah, R/o. D.No.17-465/B/4/D1, Nehrunagar, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 6) A. Krishnamurthy S/o. Siddappa, R/o. SBI Colony, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 7) N. Venkateswara Prasad S/o. Narayana Swamy, R/o. SBI Colony, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 8) N. Vidyasagar s/o. Late Narayana Swamy, R/o. Joggappagari Street, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Sub Registrar, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 2 The District Registrar, at Chittoor District. 3 The District Collector, at Chittoor District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 5 The Tahsildar, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 6 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring that the action of the District Collector, Chittoor, contained in R.Dis(E5)/7031/08 dated 07.08.2008 recording the finding that the subject land situated in Sy.No.510/2, admeasuring Ac.4.70 cents, belongs to the Government and hence cannot be registered as per the decree in O.S.No.16 of 2003, on the file of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, is arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to entertain the sale deed which is proposed to be submitted by the Court of II Additional District Judge. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE ORDER : The petitioners entered into an agreement of sale dated 19.11.1997 to an extent of Ac.4-70 cents of land in Survey No.510/2 of B.K.Palle Village, Madanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District with one P.Kamakshamma. Complaining that the vendor did not come forward to execute the sale deed, the petitioners filed O.S.No.16/2003 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The said suit was dismissed on 11.04.2005. Thereupon, the petitioners filed A.S.No.286 of 2005 before this Court. The parties to the appeal compromised and the same was recorded on 29.01.2007. Since the vendor of the petitioners did not come forward to execute the sale deed, the petitioners filed an Execution Petition. The Executing Court had sent the document for registration to the 1st respondent. The latter wanted to verify the nature of the land, particularly, in the context of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, and addressed a letter to the third respondent. Alleging that there was inaction on the part of the third respondent, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.1015 of 2008, which was disposed of on 10.06.2008 directing the third respondent to pass orders without further delay. It was in this context the third respondent issued an order, through proceedings dated 07.08.2008, holding that the land in question belongs to the Government. Petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the third respondent proceeded unilaterally and the petitioners were not given an opportunity to explain the matter. He contends that the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which constituted the basis for the opinion of the third respondent, was not made available to the petitioners. Several other grounds are also urged. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that there was no necessity or occasion for issuance of notice to the petitioners since no statutory action has taken place. He contends that the petitioners have to file a suit with regard to the nature of the land. The Registration Act was amended by introducing Section 22-A. The said provision prohibits registration of documents in respect of certain categories of lands including Government land. It was in this context that the 1st respondent referred the matter to the third respondent for verification. The third respondent made a reference to ‘A’ Register of B.K.Palle Village. He took the view that Survey No.149 of the Village, which is recorded as Gayyallu Poramboku Government land, was sub-divided and Survey No.510/2 is part of it. This information was gathered from the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The question as to whether Survey No.149 was sub-divided at all, and if so, how and when it has given rise to Survey No.510/2 are matters for detail verification. Inasmuch as the rights of the petitioners are effected, they are entitled to be furnished necessary information. Though the purport of the proceedings before the 1st respondent is very limited, the consequences flowing out of it are substantial. The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.08.2008 is set aside. The third respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the report said to have been received from the Revenue Divisional Officer, fix the date of hearing and take into account the material furnished and the grounds urged by the petitioners and thereafter pass a reasoned order. This exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J JANUARY, 22, 2009 KSH/USD