STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Vs. PRABHAKAR NAIDU
LAWS(APH)-2022-1-67
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 03,2022

State Of Andhra Pradesh, Appellant
VERSUS
Prabhakar Naidu Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PAPAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
SUB REGISTRAR SRIKALAHASTI VS. K GURAVAIAH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) By this writ appeal, the appellants would call in question the order dtd. 17/2/2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3504 of 2021. By the said order, the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was disposed of directing the appellant Nos.2 and 3 herein (respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein) to consider the respondent/writ petitioner's representation dtd. 9/10/2019 and delete the subject land from the prohibited property list and communicate the same to the sixth appellant/sixth respondent, who, in turn, on such communication, was directed to receive the sale deed proposed to be presented by the respondent/writ petitioner in respect of the subject land, process and register the same if it is otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'the Act of 1908') and the Rules made thereunder, and release the same to the respondent/writ petitioner as per law.
(2.) Brief facts, which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal, are as under: Originally, the land admeasuring Ac.5.36 cents in Sy.No.2 of Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, was assigned to one Bandala Narayana, in the year 1978. The original assignee mortgaged the said land to the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kadapa (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank'). Upon his failure to repay the loan amount, the mortgaged land was sold by the bank in public auction, in execution of the Award dtd. 22/3/1993 on the file of the Deputy Registrar/Officer on Special Duty of the bank. In the said public auction, the land was purchased by one V. Jayarami Reddy and the sale was confirmed vide registered document dtd. 17/5/1997. Subsequently, the respondent/ writ petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.3.36 cents (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject land'), out of the total land of Ac.5.36 cents, from the auction purchaser, under registered sale deed dtd. 26/2/2011, on issuance of No Objection Certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampeta. The respondent/writ petitioner was also issued pattadar passbook and title deed vide khata No.1741, for the subject land. Later on, the respondent/writ petitioner sought to sell the subject land in order to meet his medical expenses and approached the sixth respondent - Sub-Registrar, Badvel, for registration of the sale. However, the sixth respondent refused to entertain registration stating that the subject land was included in the prohibited property list under Sec. 22A(1)(e) of the Act of 1908. Thereupon, the respondent/writ petitioner made an application to the concerned authorities on 9/10/2019 for deletion of the subject land from the prohibited property list and after conducting enquiry, favourable recommendations were made by the fifth and fourth respondents vide reports dtd. 18/12/2019 and 7/3/2020 respectively. Despite the same, the second and third respondents failed to take necessary action, necessitating filing of the writ petition by the respondent/writ petitioner.
(3.) The learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the directions as noted above, on the strength of the law laid down by the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sub Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District v. K. Guravaiah, reported in 2009(2) ALD 250 (DB), wherein it was held that when the original assignee mortgaged the land assigned to him in favour of a bank or a financial institution or a co-operative society under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act of 1964'), and if the mortgager fails to repay the loan, the consequences provided in the Transfer of Property Act, 1982, would naturally follow, in that, it is permissible to put the land to public auction under the said Act and recover the loan due to the financial institution by way of sale and that the land loses the character of assigned land and such sale would be valid in law.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.