Andhra Pradesh HC Strikes Down Section 22-A Prohibited Property Tag on Visakhapatnam Land, Orders De-Notification Within Eight Weeks

The High Court held that the District Collector listed private land as prohibited property without following the mandatory gazette notification procedure under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, and directed de-notification within eight weeks.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, sitting at Amaravati, has allowed a writ petition filed by two developer firms challenging the inclusion of land measuring Ac.6.41 cents in Survey No.110/1A of Sowbhagyarayapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Justice Sumathi Jagadam, sitting singly, held the classification unlawful and arbitrary. The court found that the District Collector had bypassed the statutory requirement of publishing a gazette notification before listing the property, and that the petitioners — bona fide purchasers who held registered title deeds, pattadar passbooks, and revenue recognition since 2011 — were never impleaded in any of the proceedings that the State subsequently initiated to contest the land reform determination in their favour.

The Property and Its Title History

The property traces back to a ryotwari patta granted to Sri Godavarthy Narayanacharyulu through Lr. Dis. No. 935 of 1962 dated 28 February 1962, covering a total of Ac.39.00 cents across Survey Nos. 109, 110/1 and 110/2 in Sowbhagyarayapuram Village. The patta was reflected in the Settlement Register vide S.R. No. 56(1)10/67 VSP dated 30 April 1970.

Following the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, ceiling proceedings were initiated against the family unit. The Land Reforms Tribunal, by order in L.C.C. No.45 of 1975 dated 10 March 1976, determined surplus land of Ac.10.33 cents. On appeal by the declarant, the Appellate Tribunal by judgment dated 25 July 1977 reduced the surplus to Ac.6.41 cents. Physical possession of that surplus land was taken on 8 October 1977.

One Sri Chetty Sudarshanam subsequently intervened in C.M.A. No.115 of 1978 and secured an interim stay. The appeal was allowed on 11 September 1978. It later emerged that Chetty Eswar Rao, son of Chetty Sudarshanam, had obtained a favourable order by suppressing an earlier order in E.A.T. No.10 of 1973 before the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, which had held that his claim over the property was not maintainable.

Subsequently, Sri K.P. Kumar, son of the declarant K. Narasimhacharyulu, filed an independent claim under Section 4(2) of the 1973 Act before the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-RDO, Visakhapatnam, in L.C.C. No.45/1975/VSP. The Tribunal allowed the claim by order dated 23 June 2007, holding the declarant to be a non-surplus landholder, and directed that an additional one-fifth of the standard holding be granted to each eligible family member beyond the standard family unit.

Following that determination, the vendors executed registered sale deeds: Ac.3.95 cents was conveyed to the second petitioner under Document No.868 of 2008 dated 26 March 2008, and Ac.6.44 cents was conveyed to the first petitioner under Document No.2724 of 2009 dated 5 November 2009. In 2011, the Tahsildar, Pendurthi Mandal, issued pattadar passbooks bearing Nos.594252 and 594253 in favour of the petitioners and also issued a statutory zeroithi certificate pursuant to conversion proceedings under RC.No.305/2011/A dated 29 April 2011, certifying that the land was exempt from the ceiling legislation and constituted private property.

The Prohibited Property Classification and the Petitioners' Challenge

Notwithstanding the finality of the 2007 Tribunal order and the subsequent revenue recognition, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, classified Ac.6.41 cents in Survey No.110/1A as a prohibited property under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, directing the Sub-Registrar, Pendurthi, not to entertain any registrations or transfers of the land. When the petitioners submitted a representation seeking de-notification, the District Collector rejected it by order dated 1 January 2019. The petitioners then filed W.P.No.3076 of 2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as relied upon by the petitioners, permits the State Government to prohibit registration of documents pertaining to properties in which interests of the Government, local bodies, educational, cultural, religious or charitable institutions, or properties attached by courts or tax authorities are involved. Critically, Section 22-A(2) requires the State Government to publish a notification after obtaining from the District Collector full reasons and a complete description of the properties in the prescribed manner before such prohibition takes effect.

The petitioners argued that no such gazette notification had been published and no prescribed procedure had been followed before their land was entered in the prohibitory register. They further pointed out that the State, after accepting the 2007 Tribunal order for over a decade, belatedly filed L.R.A. No.Nil of 2020 accompanied by I.A. No.8 of 2020 seeking condonation of a delay of 5,074 days — more than fourteen years. That delay condonation application was dismissed on 13 September 2023. The State then filed a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court, which remained pending. Through all of these proceedings, the petitioners were never impleaded as parties.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Sumathi Jagadam framed three questions for determination.

On the maintainability of the Section 4(2) claim: The court rejected the State's argument that the appellate order of 25 July 1976 operated as a bar against subsequent proceedings before the Tribunal. The court found that the Section 4(2) application was grounded on a distinct and independent cause of action — that the entire eight-member family unit had never been brought on record in the 1976 proceedings. Since determination of the family unit is the foundation for computing the ceiling area under Section 4 of the Act, the earlier determination was factually incomplete. The omission gave rise to a fresh cause of action and there was no statutory compulsion on the legal heirs to separately challenge the 1976 appellate order. Accordingly, the Tribunal was fully justified in entertaining the fresh proceedings and in passing the order dated 23 June 2007 holding the declarant to be a non-surplus landholder.

On the State's claim of continuous control and possession: The court held that the State's own official acts contradicted its assertion. The Tahsildar had issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners in 2011 and had permitted land conversion proceedings. The court also noted that in I.A. No.1 of 2019, it had directed release of the registered document in favour of the petitioners subject to the result of the writ petition, observing that a court would ordinarily not direct release of original title documents to a person not in possession. The State's dormancy for more than thirteen years before filing the belated appeal in 2020, and the subsequent dismissal of the delay condonation application, left the court unpersuaded by any claim of continuing State control.

The court also held that since the petitioners were never impleaded in L.R.A. No.Nil of 2020 or in the pending Civil Revision Petition, any order in those proceedings could not legally bind the petitioners or affect their registered rights. The court stated that any judicial or administrative order passed without impleading a person whose rights are directly affected and without affording a hearing is void and unenforceable against such person. The pendency of the Civil Revision Petition did not prevent the court from deciding the writ petition on its merits.

On the conditional removal of land from the prohibitory list: The court took serious exception to the conduct of the Revenue Divisional Officer, who had removed Ac.4.03 cents from the prohibitory list but made such removal conditional upon the petitioners withdrawing the writ petition. The court held that this was wholly impermissible. Access to justice and the right to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be subjected to conditions imposed by executive authorities, and the State cannot use administrative powers to compel citizens to abandon pending legal proceedings.

Order

The court held the classification of Ac.6.41 cents in Survey No.110/1A, Sowbhagyarayapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as a prohibited property under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, to be unlawful and arbitrary.

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, was directed to issue orders for de-notification of the property within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the judgment. Upon such de-notification, the Sub-Registrar, Pendurthi — the fourth respondent — was directed to accept, register, and record the petitioners' documents in accordance with established legal procedures.

The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions were closed as a sequel.