Nara Adilakshmi v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

#1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

#2. Somisetty Ganesh Babu SC For VUDA and MUDA The Court made the following: 2 TCDS,J WP_37129_2022 ORDER:-

#1. The present writ petition is filed to set aside the endorsement dated 28.10.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent with a consequential direction to entertain and register the sale deeds in respect of plots belonging to the petitioners in Sy.Nos.34 and 35 of Rushikonda in Sy.Nos.370 and 371 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam District covered by LP No.36 of 2009 and LP No.16 of 2011.

#2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent developed residential layouts vide LP No.36 of 2009 Rushikonda Village and LP No.16 of 2011 in Madhurawada Village of Visakhapatnam District. The petitioners have purchased plot Nos.8, 115, 9, 10, 111, 112, 113, 267 and 6 in the said layouts and in pursuance thereof registered sale deeds have been executed in their favour by the 3rd respondent.

#3. It is further case of the petitioners that since the date of the purchase they have been enjoying their respective plots as absolute owners without any interruption. It is further case of the petitioners that they intended to develop their house plots by entering into development agreements with the builders so as to meet their family necessities and in that regard they approached 3 TCDS,J WP_37129_2022 the 2nd respondent for registration of their plots. Upon which, the 2nd respondent refused to register the said plots on the ground that the 3rd respondent addressed letter dated 12.04.2012 stating that there is a vigilance enquiry pending against the plots purchased by the petitioners and the same was communicated through impugned endorsement dated 28.10.2022 petitioners under Right to Information Act, 2005. Questioning the said endorsement dated 28.10.2022 the present writ petition is filed.

#4. It is further case of the petitioner that the said vigilance enquiry was ordered a decade ago and in fact the same was decided to be dropped by the government by intimating the same through its memo dated 22.03.2019. It is further contended that there is a procedure contemplated under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908 and letter dated 12.04.2012 addressed by the 3rd respondent does not fall under any of the clauses mentioned under said provision restraining the 2nd respondent to register the documents. By contending that the petitioners pray to allow the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to receive and register the documents that may be 4 TCDS,J WP_37129_2022 presented by them by declaring the impugned endorsement dated 28.10.2022.

#5. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that, the government as a policy decided to facilitate the Joint venture partnership between A.P. Housing Board and various Urban Development Authorities in the State and in pursuance thereof, the 3rd respondent directed to identify the government lands, so as to develop integrated township.

#6. In pursuance thereof lands were identified including the subject lands and the same were developed by forming layouts and sold the same in favour of various individuals including the petitioner to support the state budget.

#7. It is further case of the 3rd respondent that during the year 2010, there was a big land scam taken place in VUDA by the then officers with the connivance of certain real estate brokers and middlemen. In view there of an enquiry was ordered keeping in view the huge financial loss to the government. It is further averred that on coming to know about irregular allotments made, the 3rd respondent cancelled the allotments of plots by order dated 05.07.2014 by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the said 5 TCDS,J WP_37129_2022 cancellation order a writ petition vide WP No.11746 of 2015 was filed, which is pending adjudication and this Court passed interim order suspending the cancellation order dated 05.07.2014.

#8. It is further averred that the 3rd respondent filed suit in OS No.54 of 2014 for cancellation of sale deeds executed by it the same is pending adjudication. With the above contentions, the 3rd respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

#9. The 2nd respondent also filed counter affidavit inter- alia reiterating the averments made by the 3rd respondent in its counter. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners stating that the respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to address any communication directing the 2nd respondent not to entertain any registration in respect of subject plots and the said power is not traceable under any statute.

#10. It is further contended that the cancellation of allotment made in favour of one of the petitioners was suspended by this Court by order dated 23.04.2015 in WPMP No.15524 of 2015 in WP No.11746 of 2015. It is further contended that this Court in similar circumstances allowed writ petition filed by one of 6 TCDS,J WP_37129_2022 the purchasers vide writ petition No.23217 of 2012, dated

12.12.2012. Copy of the order passed in the said writ petition is filed along with the present writ petition.

#11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

#12. Perused material available on record.

#13. It is not in dispute that the petitioners purchased the subject plots. It is also not in dispute that the 3rd respondent executed the registered sale deeds in their favour.

#14. When the petitioners approached the respondent No.2 registration, impugned endorsement dated

28.10.2022 was issued on the ground that the 3rd respondent addressed a communication dated 12.04.2012, which was obtained by the petitioners under Right to Information Act, 2005.

#15. In similar circumstances, this Court allowed writ petition vide WP No.23217 of 2012 by order dated 12.12.2012, which was filed by one of the purchasers in the sale conducted by 7 TCDS,J WP_37129_2022 the 3rd respondent. The counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3 did not dispute the same. In the said writ petition, this Court passed the following order: “Section 22-A of the Act prohibited registration of certain documents. At the hearing, it has been conceded that none of the clauses of the said provision empowers respondent No.3 to address a letter to the registering authority restraining him from registering the properties. It is also conceded that the present case does not fall in any of the clauses of the said provisions creating a bar on respondent No.2 to register the documents. As on today, the petitioner is the lawful owner of the property. He has, therefore, a right to enjoy the property and also dispose of the same in any manner without any fetters. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to convey all his rights in the property to any party of his choice. In the absence of any prohibition in law, such a right of the petitioner cannot be taken away either by respondent No.3 or by respondent No.2. By mere registration, neither the petitioner nor his successors- in-interest could avoid legal liabilities that may arise in the event it is found that the transactions under which the properties were conveyed to the petitioner were vitiated by fraud or illegalities. Both the petitioner and his successors would be liable for legal consequences in the event such irregularities are proved. In anticipation of future legal action, respondents 2 and 3 cannot prevent the petitioner from registering the conveyance deeds. For the above-mentioned reasons, respondent No.2 is directed to receive the document that may be presented by the petitioner in respect of the above-mentioned properties and register the same subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Act and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is made clear that mere registration of the documents would not absolve the liability of the petitioner and his successors-in-interest of legal action arising out of the enquiry that is stated to be pending with respondent No.3.”

#16. The case on hand is also similar to that of the case in Writ Petition No.23217 of 2012. The order passed in WP No.23217 of 2012 attained finality and respondents implemented the said order by registering the documents 8 TCDS,J WP_37129_2022 presented by the petitioners therein. Apart from the same, the enquiry ordered by the 3rd respondent was also dropped by Memo dated 22.03.2019. Therefore, there is no impediment to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioners

#17. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to receive the documents that may be presented by the petitioners in respect of subject properties and to register the same after complying with the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is made clear that, mere registration of documents would not absolve the liability of the petitioners and their successors-in-interest from the future litigation if any, including the result of the suits that were filed by the 3rd respondent.

#18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

09.04.2025 DR ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 9 TCDS,J WP_37129_2022 24 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP No.37129 of 2022 Date 09.04.2025 DR