A single-judge bench consisting of honourable justice Ninala Jayasurya gave orders on the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petition challenges the action of respondents in including the land owned by the petitioner in the prohibited property list under section 22-A of the registration act as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the established legal principles. The petition included that the action of the respondent is violative of the constitutional rights under Article 14, 19, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
FACTS
The petitioner had purchased the said property in the auction held by the district cooperative central bank. A sale certificate and a Pattadar passbook were issued to him, post which he continued paying the land cost regularly. The petitioner wanted to give the land to his daughter and requested respondent no. 4 to furnish the stamp duty and registration charges. He was informed that his land is included in the prohibited land list under section 22-A of the registration act and thus, registration couldn’t happen. The petitioner filed the writ petition to remove his land from the list of prohibited land list as he was the absolute owner of the land and had all the relevant evidence for the same.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
The learned counsel of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased the said land in the auction held by the bank and the bank had also issued the sale certificate to the petitioner. Therefore, respondent no. 4 cannot refuse to register the land on grounds of it being on the prohibited land list. The petitioner counsel also contended that once the land was auctioned it was no more banks property. The petitioner was the valid owner of the land and the action of the respondent is contrary to law, unjust and the petitioner must be granted relief. The counsel of the petitioner relied on the following two judgments – Sub-registrar, Chittoor district v. K. Guruvaiah, and The Government of A.P. v. T. Krishna Murthy.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
The court opined that the judgments quoted above are applicable to the present case. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner counsel are upheld. The refusal by respondent no. 4 for registering the land owned by the petitioner is unlawful. The rejection on the grounds that the land is under the prohibited land list is unsustainable and so the writ of mandamus is allowed.
COURT’S DECISION
The court allowed the writ petition. Respondent no. 4 is directed to delete the land of the petitioner from the list of the prohibited land list issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The respondent shall receive the documents presented by the petitioner for the purpose of registration. The said exercise shall be completed within three weeks from the date of submission of the documents by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Any miscellaneous application shall also stand closed.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
