IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

****

WRIT PETITION No.339 of 2024

Y.Nagasubbamma, W/o late Palireddy, aged

about 52 years, Agriculture, R/o Ashutagaripalli,

C.K.Dinne Manadal, YSR District.

… Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal

Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat

Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District

and four others.

… Respondents.

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 16.04.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No

_____________________

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J

Page 2 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

+ WRIT PETITION No.339 of 2024

% 16.04.2024

WRIT PETITION No.339 of 2024

Y.Nagasubbamma, W/o late Palireddy, aged

about 52 years, Agriculture, R/o Ashutagaripalli,

C.K.Dinne Manadal, YSR District.

… Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal

Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat

Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District

and four others.

… Respondents.

! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri

^ Counsel for Respondents : GP for Revenue

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1) 2016 (2) ALD 236 = 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407

2) AIR 1968 SC 1196

3) (2019) 13 SCC 42 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 398

This Court made the following:

Page 3 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION No.339 of 2024

Y.Nagasubbamma, W/o late Palireddy, aged about

52 years, Agriculture, R/o Ashutagaripalli,

C.K.Dinne Manadal, YSR District.

… Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal

Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat

Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District

and four others.

… Respondents.

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Abhay representing

Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri

Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue

ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of 1

st

respondent in including the land in an extent of Ac.2.48 cents in

S.No.1540 of Chintakommadinne Village and Mandal, Kadapa

District, in prohibited property list of G.O.Ms.No.152 dated

27.03.2023 under Section 22-A(1)(a) as assigned land and

consequential action of 5

th

respondent in refusing to register the

document vide P.No.305 of 2023 dated 17.10.2023, as illegal and

arbitrary.

Page 4 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

2. a) Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that petitioner is the

absolute owner of land of an extent of Ac.2.48 cents in S.No.1540 of

C.K.Dinne village fields, C.K. Dinne Mandal, YSR District. The

petitioner inherited the property from her father-in-law Yeturi Chinna

Kondaiah, who, inturn, purchased the same under registered sale

deed dated 23.03.1967. Records of Rights were updated and the

name of petitioner was mutated in 1-B and Adangal and pattadar

pass book was also issued.

b) During the year 2012, petitioner intended to sell the subject

land and approached the 5

th

respondent to furnish market value

particulars. The 5

th

Respondent refused to furnish the information

stating that as per the list communicated by the Tahsildar, C.K.

Dinne Mandal, the subject land is classified as assigned land and

hence, it cannot be registered. Petitioner filed W.P.No.32175 of

2012 and the same was allowed on 31.10.2012. However, the

transaction was not fructified.

c) Petitioner intended to execute Gift/Settlement deed dated

22.9.2023 in favour of son and presented the document for

registration. The 5

th

Respondent refused to register the document

stating that property is included in prohibited list as Assigned land

under Section 22 -A(1)(a) vide G.O.Ms.No.152 REVN.

Page 5 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

REVSWLAODTL/2/2023-JA(SWLA)-KDPCO. The 1

st

Respondent

issued G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 5.05.2016 by including the property

referred to supra under Section 22-A (1)(e) of the Registration Act,

1908 (for short “the Act”). Later by issuing G.O.Ms.No.152 dated

27.03.2023 it was changed to Section 22-A (1)(a) of the Act. With

the above facts, the present writ petition is filed.

3. a) 2

nd

Respondent filed counter affidavit. It was contended,

interalia, that the petitioner without alternative availing remedy under

Section 22-A(4) of the Act filed the writ petition and hence, the same

is not maintainable. An extent of Ac.2.48 cents in S.No.1540 of

C.K.Dinne village is classified in the RSR as Dotted (…) land. Mere

registration of the document does not confer any title or right over

the Government lands. Section 22-A of the Act was inserted in the

year 2007. Challenging the same writ petitions were filed. The Full

Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Vinjamuri

Rajagopala Chary Vs. State of A.P.

1

, held that such insertion of

Section 22-A is not unconstitutional and further framed certain

guidelines. Pursuant to said directions, the State Government

communicated prohibited properties list to the Registration

1

2016 (2) ALD 236 = 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407

Page 6 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

authorities. The State Government published list of prohibited

properties under Section 22-A (1)(e) of the Act. Pursuant to the

order in W.P.No.32175 of 2012, petitioner did not submit any

document for registration, till the Government published the land in

the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A(1)(e). In view of

observation of the Full Bench, if any judgments or observations by

the High Court or by any other Officer are inconsistent with the

judgment of the Full Bench, the observations made by the Full

Bench will prevail and would bind the parties and, therefore, the

order in W.P.No.32175 of 2012 dated 31.10.2012 does not bind the

parties.

b) The Government of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Andhra

Pradesh Dotted Lands (Updation in Re-Settlement Register) Act,

2017 (for short “Act 2017”) for updation of Dotted lands as Patta

lands in RSR. As per G.O.Ms.No.298, a District Level Committee,

consisting of District Collector as the Chairperson, Joint Collector,

Sub-Collector of Revenue Divisional Officer as members and the

Tahsildar as member-convener was constituted. The District Level

Committee shall dispose of claims on merits within six months from

the date of filing claim. Petitioner can as well make application

through mee-seva/Gram Sachivalayam seeking to delete the

property from the prohibitory list.

Page 7 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

4. Additional counter affidavit was filed reiterating the averments

made in the counter affidavit. In the additional counter affidavit, it

was pleaded about initial survey and settlement operations etc.

5. Heard Sri Abhay, learned counsel representing Sri V.R.

Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dilip, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner while reiterating the

contentions as per the averments made in the affidavit would submit

that petitioner’s father-in-law purchased property under a registered

document dated 23.03.1967 and in fact, the petitioner’s name was

updated in revenue records including 1-B and adangal. Pattadar

passbook was also issued. He would also submit that earlier

petitioner filed W.P.No.32175 of 2012 and the same was allowed.

He would submit that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.200 dated

05.05.2016 including the property under Section 22-A (1)(e) of the

Act and later, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 27.03.2023, the

petitioner’s land is shown in Section 22-A (1)(a) of the Act. He would

also submit that neither the alleged DKT patta was filed nor the

name of assigned was mentioned in the counter affidavit and hence,

including the petitioner’s property in the prohibitory list under Section

Page 8 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

22-A (1)(a) of the Act vide G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 27.03.2023 is to be

set aside.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would

submit that petitioner got effective alternative remedy under Section

22-A (4) of the Act and without availing the same and hence, the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed. He would also submit that

pursuant to order in W.P.No.32175 of 2012 the Dotted Act, 2017

was enacted and hence, the order in earlier writ petition is of no

consequence. He would also submit that unless and until the entry

is deleted from prohibitory list under Section 22-A (1)(a), the

document cannot be registered.

8. In view of respective submissions, the point of consideration

is:

Whether res judicata will apply to writ petitions? If so,

inclusion of property under prohibitory list under

Section 22-A (1)(a) vide G.O.Ms.No.152 dated

27.03.2023 and G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 05.05.2016, is

illegal and arbitrary?

9. Finality of judgment puts an end to judicial process. The

doctrine of res judicata is based on three Roman maxims.

Page 9 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

(1) “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa”

(no man should be vexed twice for the same cause);

(2) “Interest republicae ut sit finis litium” (it is in the

interest of the State that there should be an end to a

litigation); and

(3) “Re judicata pro veritate occipitur” (judicial decision

must be accepted as correct).

10. In Virudhunagar Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Government

of Madras

2

, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that res

judicata will apply in writ petitions also. As per Section 11 of Civil

Procedure Code, 1908, when the matter has been directly and

substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or

between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating

under the same title, the decree in former suit would be res judicata

between the plaintiff and defendant or between the co-plaintiff and

co-defendant.

11. In P.Bandopadhya Vs. Union of India

3

, the Hon’ble Apex

Court held thus:

2

AIR 1968 SC 1196

3

(2019) 13 SCC 42 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 398

Page 10 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

“8.11. The decision in S.V. Vasaikar v. Union of India [2003

SCC OnLine Bom 171 : (2003) 2 Mah LJ 691 : (2003) 4 Bom

CR 79] was not challenged before the Supreme Court, and has

since attained finality. Therefore, the relief sought by the

appellants before the High Court was barred by the principle of

res judicata.

Reference can be made to the decision of the

Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers'

Assn. Vs. State of Maharashtra [(1990) 2 SCC 715 : 1990

SCC (L&S) 339 : AIR 1990 SC 1607] wherein Sharma, J., on

behalf of the five-Judge Bench, held: (SCC pp. 740-41, para

35)

“35. … It is well established that the principles of res

judicata are applicable to writ petitions. The relief prayed for on

behalf of the petitioner in the present case is the same as he

would have, in the event of his success, obtained in the earlier

writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner in reply

contended that since the special leave petition before this Court

was dismissed in limine without giving any reason, the order

cannot be relied upon for a plea of res judicata. The answer is

that it is not the order of this Court dismissing the special leave

petition which is being relied upon; the plea of res judicata has

been pressed on the basis of the High Court's judgment which

became final after the dismissal of the special leave petition. In

similar situation a Constitution Bench of this Court in Daryao v.

State of U.P. [Daryao v. State of U.P., (1962) 1 SCR 574 : AIR

1961 SC 1457] held that where the High Court dismisses a writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution after hearing the

matter on the merits, a subsequent petition in the Supreme

Court under Article 32 on the same facts and for the same

reliefs filed by the same parties will be barred by the general

principle of res judicata. The binding character of judgments of

courts of competent jurisdiction is in essence a part of the rule

of law on which the administration of justice, so much

emphasised by the Constitution, is founded and a judgment of

the High Court under Article 226 passed after a hearing on the

merits must bind the parties till set aside in appeal as provided

by the Constitution and cannot be permitted to be circumvented

by a petition under Article 32.”

Albeit the decision of the Constitution Bench was in the

context of a writ petition filed under Article 32, it would apply

with greater force to bar a writ petition filed under Article 226,

like the one filed by the present appellants, by the operation of

the principle of res judicata.”

Page 11 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

12. Keeping in view of the ratio laid down in the judgments supra,

this Court intends to proceed further. Case at hand, petitioner’s

father-in-law purchased the property under a registered sale deed

dated 23.03.1967. Petitioner filed W.P.No.32175 of 2012 to declare

the action of 3

rd

respondent therein i.e. Tahsildar in including the

land referred to supra in the list of Assigned/Government land and

the consequential action of the Sub Registrar in not registering the

document. The said writ petition was disposed of on 310.10.2012,

wherein the instructions of the Government Pleader were recorded

as follows:

“When the matter is taken up today, based on the written

instructions, dated 17.10.2012 issued in Ref.B/313.2012 by the

third respondent, it is submitted by the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the

respondents that the land in question is treated as a

Government land basing on the dots shown in RSR of

Cherlopalli Village of C.K.Dinne Mandal”

The following observations were made by the learned single

Judge of the composite High Court:

“In that view of the matter, there is no reason to include

the land in question in the list of Government/Assigned lands

prohibiting registration basing on the dots shown in RSR.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed

declaring that inclusion of land admeasuring Acs.2.48 cents

Page 12 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

covered by Survey No.1540 situated at C.K.Dinne Village

fields, C.K.Dinne Mandal, YSR District, in the list of

Government/Assigned lands basing on the dots shown in RSR,

is illegal. Consequently, there shall be a direction that in case

the petitioner presents any document with regard to transfer of

aforesaid land, the fourth respondent shall receive and process

the same for registration without treating the said land either as

a Government land or an assigned land and without insisting

for production of no objection certificate from the revenue

authorities. It is made clear that it is open for the registering

authority to verify whether such document is in accordance with

the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamp

Act, 1899.”

13. No appeal was filed against the said order and hence, the

order in W.P.No.32175 of 2012 became final.

14. In Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary’s case, the Full Bench of the

composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh framed the points for

consideration as follows:

“1. What are the prerequisites that are to be satisfied for

applying any one or more of clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A(1)

of the Registration Act to any document dealing with alienation

or transfer by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or

lease, etc. in respect of immovable property presented for

registration?

2. Under what circumstances, the act of the Registering

Authority concerned (District Registrar or Sub-Registrar) in

refusing from registration of the aforementioned document/s by

applying any one or more of the prohibitory clauses (a) to (e)

under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act can be said to be

justified?

Page 13 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

In Paragraph-5 of the judgment, it was mentioned as follows:

“5. Before we look at and consider Section 22-A of Registration

Act, it would be necessary and relevant to make a brief

reference to the six judgments of different learned Judges

dealing with Section 22-A, to which our attention was

specifically invited to, so as to understand the exact nature of

controversy and factual matrix against which the questions

were framed and addressed therein, to enable us to frame and

address the questions, covering the field of operation of this

provision. The six judgments are in

(i) T.Yedukondalu Vs. State of A.P. (2011 SCC OnLine P

179 : AIR 2011 AP 132).

(ii) Dr.Dinakar Mogili Vs. State of A.P. (2011 SCC OnLine

AP 488 : 2011 (6) ALD 502)

(iii) Guntur City House Construction Co-operative

Society Ltd., Guntur Vs. Tahsildar ((2012 SCC

OnLine AP 20 : 2012 (2) ALD 332).

(iv) Raavi Satish Vs. State of A.P. (2012 SCC OnLIne AP

856 : 2013 (1) ALT 774).

(v) Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary Vs. State of A.P. (2015

SCC OnLine Hyd 407 : 2016 (2) ALD 236)

(vi) C.Radhakrishnama Naidu Vs. State of A.P. (2015

SCC OnLine Hyd 198 : 2015 (4) ALT 1)

15. After considering each of the clauses of Section 22-A (1) (a)

to (e) of the Act and the Government instructions regarding

communication and notification, the reference ordered as follows:

Page 14 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

“36. We, thus, summarize our conclusions and issue directions as

follows : -

(i) The authorities mentioned in the guidelines, which are obliged to

prepare lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d), to be sent

to the registering authorities under the provisions of Registration

Act, shall clearly indicate the relevant clause under which each

property is classified.

(ii) Insofar as clause (a) is concerned, the concerned District

Collectors shall also indicate the statute under which a transaction

and its registration is prohibited. Further in respect of the

properties covered under clause (b), they shall clearly indicate

which of the Governments own the property.

(iii) Insofar as paragraphs (3) and (4) in the Guidelines, covering

properties under clause (c) and (d) are concerned, the authorities

contemplated therein shall also forward to the registering

authorities, along with lists, the extracts of registers/gazette if the

property is covered by either endowment or wakf, and

declarations/orders made under the provisions of Ceiling Acts if

the property is covered under clause (d).

(iv)The authorities forwarding the lists of properties/lands to the

registering authority shall also upload the same to the website of

both the Governments, namely igrs.ap.gov.in of the State of

Andhra Pradesh and registration.telangana.gov.in of the State of

Telangana. If there is any change in the website, the State

Governments shall indicate the same to all concerned, may be by

issuing a press note or an advertisement in prominent daily news

papers.

(v) No notification, contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 22A, is

necessary with respect to the properties falling under clauses (a)

to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A.

(vi) The properties covered under clause (e) of Section 22-A shall be

notified in the official gazette of the State Governments and shall

be forwarded, along with the list of properties, and a copy of the

Page 15 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

relevant notification/gazette, to the concerned registering

authorities under the provisions of Registration Act and shall also

place the said notification/gazette on the aforementioned websites

of both the State Governments. The Registering authorities shall

make available a copy of the Notification/Gazette on an

application made by an aggrieved party.

(vii) The registering authorities would be justified in refusing

registration of documents in respect of the properties covered by

clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A provided the

authorities contemplated under the guidelines, as aforementioned,

have communicated the lists of properties prohibited under these

clauses.

(viii) The concerned authorities, which are obliged to furnish the lists

of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of

Section 22-A, and the concerned Registering Officers shall follow

the guidelines scrupulously.

(ix) It is open to the parties to a document, if the relevant property/land

finds place in the list of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of

sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, to apply for its deletion from the

list or modification thereof, to the concerned authorities as

provided for in the guidelines. The concerned authorities are

obliged to consider the request in proper perspective and pass

appropriate order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the

application and make its copy available to the concerned party.

(x) The redressal mechanism under Section 22-A(4) shall be before

the Committees to be constituted by respective State

Governments as directed in paragraph-35.1 above. The State

Governments shall constitute such committees within eight weeks

from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.

(xi) Apart from the redressal mechanism, it is also open to an

aggrieved person to approach appropriate forum including Civil

Court for either seeking appropriate declaration or deletion of his

property/land from the list of prohibited properties or for any other

appropriate relief.

Page 16 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

(xii) The directions issued by learned single Judges in six judgments

referred to above or any other judgments dealing with the

provisions of Section 22-A, if are inconsistent with the

observations made or directions issued in this judgment, it is

made clear that the observations made and directions issued in

this judgment shall prevail and would be binding on the parties

including the registering authorities under the Registration Act or

Government officials or the officials under the Endowments Act,

Wakf Act and Ceiling Acts. (emphasis is mine)

(xiii) If the party concerned seeks extracts of the list/register/gazette of

properties covered by clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A (1),

received by the registering officer on the basis of which he refused

registration, it shall be furnished within 10 days from the date of an

application made by the aggrieved party.

(xiv) Registering officer shall not act and refuse registration of a

document in respect of any property furnished to him directly by

any authority/officer other than the officers/authori-ties mentioned

in the Guidelines.

(xv) Mere registration of a document shall not confer title on the

vendee/alienee, if the property is otherwise covered by clauses (a)

to (e), but did not find place in the lists furnished by the concerned

authorities to the registering officers. In such cases, the only

remedy available to the authorities under clauses (a) to (e) of sub-

section (1) of Section 22-A is to approach appropriate forums for

appropriate relief.

16. The Direction No.12 of the Full Bench judgment would

indicate that the directions issued by learned single Judges in six

judgments referred in the judgment or any other judgments dealing

with the provisions of Section 22-A, if it is inconsistent with the

observations made or directions issued, it is made clear that the

observations made and directions issued the judgment (full bench)

Page 17 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

shall prevail and would be binding on the parties including the

registering authorities under the Registration Act or Government

officials or the officials under the Endowments Act, Wakf Act and

Ceiling Acts.

17. Earlier litigation in W.P.No.32175 of 2012 between the

petitioner on one side and the Government on the other, learned

single of composite high court directed the authorities to register the

document and made certain observations. Learned counsel

appearing for respondent could not point out inconsistency in the

order passed by learned single Judge and order in Vinjamuri

Rajagopalachiary’s case. In fact, this Court also does not find any

inconsistency or conflict.

18. The contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader that

by virtue of order in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary’s case, once

again the property is included in prohibitory list, is meritless and

such a contention cannot be countenanced. Once the order is

passed and it becomes final, the order binds both the parties to the

litigation. Neither of the parties to the litigation would be allowed to

plead changes in law at a later point in time. The order passed binds

both the parties and it is set aside. If the legislature enacts any new

statute, the situation is something different. The very object of the

Page 18 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

res judicata that no man should be vexed twice on/for the same

cause shall not be allowed to frustrate.

19. Apart from that the property referred to supra is included

initially in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A (1)(e) vide

G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 05.05.2016 stating that “violation of

assignment conditions”. Later, the entry was changed to Section

22-A(1)(a) vide G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 27.03.2023 stating that

“violated assignment conditions”. It is pertinent to mention here that

the counter affidavit is conspicuously silent as to who is the

assignee and on whose favour assignment was made and the date

of assignment and its violation. The authority having pleaded

assignment ought to have placed relevant material before the Court.

However, nothing was placed. Unless the respondent authorities

plead assignment in favour of third party and violation of said

assignment, they are not expected to keep the property under the

prohibitory list. In fact, the original plea of the authorities is that

property referred to supra is Dotted land and later, the stand was

changed to assignment. Thus, the authorities themselves are not

clear as to the nature of property.

20. It is very unfortunate that after the judgment in Vinjamuri

Rajagopalachari’s case, notwithstanding the earlier order, which

Page 19 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

became final, the revenue authorities included vast extents of

property under Section 22-A (1)(a) to (d) without having supporting

documents. Indeed, the case at hand is a classic example.

According to counter affidavit, as per RSR, the property is shown as

dotted. If the property is shown as dotted, as per the full bench

judgment, a notification should be made under Section 22-A (1)(e)

of the Act. In G.O.Ms.No.200, the property was included, and it was

mentioned as a violation of assignment. Again, the classification

was changed to Section 22-A(1)(a) vide G.O.Ms.No.152, impugned

in the writ petition. However, nothing is forthcoming as to who is the

alleged assignee, date of assignment and violation of the said

assignment. The authorities, in the considered opinion of this Court,

failed to understand the ratio in Vinjamuri Rajagopalachari’s case

and as a result unsettled the earlier orders passed by the Court.

21. Once, the order in W.P.No.32175 of 2012 became final,

inclusion of property in the notification published in Section 22-A

(1)(e) vide G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 05.05.2016 and thereafter in

Section 22-A (1)(a) vide G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 27.03.2023, in the

opinion of this Court, is hit by res judicata. If the authorities keep on

including the properties in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A

(1)(a) to (e), even though the earlier order became final, it will lead

Page 20 of 20

SRSJ

WP No.339 of 2024

to an incongruous situation. Even without filing appeals, the

authorities, in a way, are nullifying the orders passed by the Courts

earlier to Vinjamuri Rajagopalachari’s case without even filing

appeals. Such a course in the opinion of this Court is impermissible.

22. In view of discussion supra, inclusion of land in an extent of

Ac.2.48 cents in S.No.1540 of Chintakommadinne Village and

Mandal, Kadapa District, in prohibited property list of

G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 27.03.2023 under Section 22-A (1)(a) as

assigned land, is hereby set aside. The 5

th

respondent-Sub

Registrar shall entertain registration in respect of document bearing

P.No.305 of 2013 dated 17.10.2023, if it is in accordance with the

provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act,

1899.

23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

___________________________

JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

16

th

April, 2024

Note: LR COPY TO BE MARKED

B/O

PVD