Common Order:

1. Heard Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners (in both Writ Petitions) and Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. Each of these two Writ Petitions is individually filed by the Wife and Husband respectively. Facts in both Writ Petitions are identical except survey number of the properties purchased and the extent. Therefore, the prayer sought in both the Writ Petitions are usefully extracted hereunder:

3. Prayer in W.P.No.4687 of 2025 (by the wife) :

                  “…to issue order, direction, writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in including the petitioner‟s land covered in R.S.No.269/5 an extent of Ac.4-20 cts situated at Kanupeda Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District in prohibitory list under section22A of Registration Act as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act and consequentially direct the respondents to delete the petitioner‟s land covered in R.S.No.269/5 an extent of Ac.4- 20 cts situated at Kanupeda Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District from the prohibitory list under section 22 A of Registration Act and to pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

4. Prayer in W.P.No.4691 of 2025 (by the husband):

                  “…to issue order, direction, writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in including the petitioner‟s land covered in R.S.No.269/1 an extent of Ac.4-50 cts situated at Kanupeda Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru dist in prohibitory list under section 22A of Registration Act as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act and consequentially direct the respondents to delete the petitioner‟s land covered in R.S.No.269/1 an extent of Ac.4- 50 cts situated at Kanupeda Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District from the prohibitory list under section 22 A of Registration Act and to pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

5. At the outset, this Court is rather pained to observe that this Court had to once again take the trouble of deciding the law which is already decided in perhaps a few hundreds of Writ Petitions. Despite the fact that the law is firmly settled and had already been reiterated again and again, the Revenue Officers, instead of applying the settled law had been forcing the Citizens to approach this Court for reiteration of the very same law that had attained finality, as if the issues have never been decided before. If the settled law is correctly construed by the Officers concerned, the said Officers would have no other option but to act in accordance with the same and delete the properties from the Prohibited Properties List under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 and would mutate the Revenue Records. The Registration Authorities also shall accordingly register the free sale and purchase of such properties without raising any objection whatsoever.

6. In the present cases also, the facts would indicate that the Citizens were constrained to approach this Court seeking deletion of the properties from the Prohibited List under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 and also for a direction to the Registration Authorities to register the Sale Deeds. This Court had to make these extreme observations because in respect of the very same subject property that is involved in both the Writ Petitions, the assigned lands that were auctioned by the Chintalapudi Co-operative Agricultural Bank, Chintalapudi (for short ‘the Co-operative Bank) on account of default of payment by the assignees and even after a Learned Single Judge of this Court had passed an Order directing the Official Respondents to register the Sale Deeds in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.21206 of 2012 dated 13.07.2012, the Authorities have once again illegally prevented the Writ Petitioners herein from making a sale of such lands and for registration of Sale Deeds.

7. The facts in the present Writ Petitions are to the effect that one Sri Polimera Krishnaiah S/o Ramulu was granted L.D Pata No.1024/LD/71 dated 29.02.1962 of an extent of Ac.4.20 cents in R.S.No.269/5 situated at Kanupade Village of Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District. Similarly, one Sri Peram Ramulu S/o Veeranna was granted L.D Patta No.1022/LD/71 dated 29.02.1962 of an extent of Ac.4.50 cents situated at Kanupade Village of Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District; that both the assignees (Sri Polimera Krishnaiah and Peram Ramulu) have mortgaged their respective assigned lands in favour of the Co-operative Bank and availed agricultural loan; that since each of the assignees have failed to discharge the loan amount, the Co-operative Bank had conducted auction in E.P.No.27/1985-86 in respect of property belonging to Peram Ramulu. The Co-operative Bank had conducted auction in E.P.No.28/1985-86 in respect of land belonging to Polimeru Krishnaiah.

8. It is submitted that the assigned land of Peram Ramulu was purchased in the auction by one Smt. Upadyayula Venkata Lakshmi Devi w/o Purushotham in respect of Ac.4-50 cents in R.S.No.269/1 vide Sale Certificate No.E.P.No.27/1985-86 dated 29.09.1986. The assigned land of Polimeru Krishnaiah was purchased in the auction by the same person i.e., Smt. Upadyayula Venkata Lakshmi Devi w/o Purushotham in respect of Ac.4- 20 cents in R.S.No.269/5 vide Sale Certificate No.E.P.No.28/1985-86 dated 19.03.1987.

9. It is further submitted that Smt. Upadyayula Venkata Lakshmi Devi w/o Purushotham sold the land of Ac.4.50 cents in R.S.No.269/1 through a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.2011 of 1997 dated 08.08.1997 in favour of Sri Md. Mehamud. She has also sold an another extent of land Ac.4.20 cents in R.S.No.269/5 to Sri Md. Mehamud through a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.2012 of 1997 dated 08.08.1997. Sri Md. Mehamud sold both the extents to Sri Sanku Ganga Ratnam w/o Siva Prasad through registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.182/2013 16.01.2013.

10. However, when Smt. Sanku Ganga Ratnam had intended to sell an extent of Ac.4.50 cents in R.S.No.269/1 to Sri Challagulla Ranga Rao s/o Ch. Bhushayya (Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.4691 of 2025) and also an extent of Ac.4.20 cents in R.S.No.269/5 to Smt. Challagulla Symala w/o Rang Rao (Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.4687 of 2025), the Sub-Registrar raised an objection with regard to the execution of Sale Deeds. At this stage, Smt. Sanku Ganga Ratnam approached this Court by filing W.P.No.21206 of 2012 in respect of both the lands namely the land of an extent of Ac.4-50 cents situated in R.S.No.269/1 and the land of an extent of Ac.4-20 cents situated in R.S.No.269/5. The Learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the Writ Petition directing the Sub-registrar, Chintalapudi to receive and process the documents that may be presented by the Writ Petitioner in accordance with law. The Learned Single Judge had clearly held in Para No.4 of his Order, which is usefully extracted hereunder:

                  “4. It is no doubt true that the lands are assigned at one point of time and that Section 22-A of the Registration Act as amended through A.P. Act 19 of 2007 prohibits registration of documents pertaining to assigned lands. However, the lands were mortgaged in favour of the District Co-operative Central Bank and once they were brought to sale, they loose the character of assigned lands. Such transactions are exempted under Section 6 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. In W.P.No.14750 of 2007, this Court took the view that once an assigned land was brought to sale by a Cooperative Bank, the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act does not apply for them. The same was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.950 of 2007.”

11. Presently, both the purchasers namely Sri Challagulla Ranga Rao (Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.4691 of 2025) and Smt. Challagulla Syamala (Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.4687 of 2025) were again constrained to approach this Court by filing these two Writ Petitions complaining the inaction on the part of the Respondents in allowing them to sell the subject land to the third parties on the ground that the properties are still mentioned in the Prohibited Properties List under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 and therefore, the Sub-Registrar had declined to register the Sale Deeds. In the opinion of this Court, the Respondent Authorities ought to have firstly taken care to delete the subject properties from the Prohibited Properties List under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, when the Learned Single Judge had passed an Order on 13.07.2012 in W.P.No.21206 of 2012, since the said Order had attained finality. The Writ Petitioners herein have been constrained to approach this Court, since the Respondent Authorities have declined to register the Sale Deeds that they intend to sell to the third parties despite the fact that the assigned lands underwent a change and became freehold lands in view of the auction held by the Co-operative Bank, and thereafter, the subject land had changed hands by the legally valid instruments atleast twice. The non-deletion of the subject properties of an extent of Ac.4.50 cents in R.S.No.269/1 and an extent of Ac.4.20 cents in R.S.No.269/5 can only be attributable to the gross inaction on the part of the Official Respondents in taking steps for deletion of the subject properties from the Prohibited Properties List under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 when the first auction took place itself or atleast thereafter when the said properties had atleast passed on to two subsequent purchasers, one after the other.

12. As indicated above, this Court had made the law explicit in a few hundred Judgments rendered by this Court only because the Respondent Authorities are not effecting the changes in the Revenue Record as well as in the Prohibited Properties List despite clear directions from this Court. From the Judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in several Writ Appeals and one such Judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petitions, the Revenue Authorities appear to be pachydermic in effecting timely change.

13. The following are the Judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on the same issues:

                  i. Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti Chittoor District and another vs. K. Guravaiah and another (W.A.No.950 of 2007): 2008 SCC OnLine AP 743 : (2009) 2 ALD 250 (DB) – Para Nos.14 to 19.

                  ii. State of A.P vs. P. Usha Rani, Chittoor District and another (W.A.No.1924 of 2017) : 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 847 : (2018) 6 ALD 397 (DB) – Para Nos.7 to 9.

                  iii. State of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Yashoda and another (W.A.No.1920 of 2017) : 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 863 : (2019) 4 ALD 413 (DB) – Para No.9.

                  iv. The Govt. of A.P and three others vs. T. Krishna Murthy (W.A.No.955 of 2017) : 2019 SCC OnLine Hyd 312 : (2018) 6 ALD 686 (DB) – Para Nos.6 to 8.

                  Note: The Hon’ble Supreme Court has confirmed the Judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in SLP (Civil) Diary No.5795 of 2019 vide Order dated 05.03.2019.

                  v. State of Andhra Pradesh vs Y. Prabhakar Naidu (W.A.No.921 of 2021) : 2022 SCC OnLine AP 109 : 2022 (3) ALD 1 (DB) – Para Nos.7 to 10.

14. It is not out of place to mention that referring to the case of Sub- Registrar, Srikalahasti Chittoor District and another vs. K. Guravaiah and another (W.A.No.950 of 2007), a Learned Single Judge of this Court (myself) had held in Para No.8 of the Order of this Court in the case of Daravathu Praveen Naik vs. State of A.P in W.P.No.13743 of 2019 vide Order dated 04.05.2022 as under:

                  8. It is unfortunate that despite the fact that the law in this regard has been well settled that when the once the assigned land is sold away in a public auction, the natural consequence of it would be that such land would lose its status as assigned land way back in the year 2008. It appears that this is due to either lack of knowledge on the part of the authorities or on account of apathy towards the citizens, that the parties are made to run from pillar to post without relief.

15. Even in respect of well settled law, the Respondent Authorities are compelling the Citizens to approach this Court, thereby creating a docket explosion which is plainly avoidable. This Court is rather constrained to consider the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as regards the indispensable Constitutional obligation on the part of the Respondent Authorities to truly act like Public Servants to the Citizens of this Country.

16. In Para Nos.78 to 82 in Eureka Forbes Limited vs Allahabad Bank and Others : (2010) 6 SCC 193, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

                  “78. The concept of public accountability and performance is applicable to the present case as well. These are instrumentalities of the State and thus all administrative norms and principles of fair performance are applicable to them with equal force as they are to the government department, if not with a greater rigour. The well-established precepts of public trust and public accountability are fully applicable to the functions which emerge from the public servants or even the persons holding public office. In State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh [(1997) 4 SCC 430] , this Court, in exercise of the powers of judicial review stated that, the doctrine of full faith and credit applies to the acts done by officers in the hierarchy of the State. They have to faithfully discharge their duties to elongate public purpose.

                  79. Inaction, arbitrary action or irresponsible action would normally result in dual hardship. Firstly, it jeopardises the interest of the Bank and public funds are wasted and secondly, it even affects the borrower's interest adversely provided such person was acting bona fide. Both these adverse consequences can easily be avoided by the authorities concerned by timely and coordinated action. The authorities are required to have a more practical and pragmatic approach to provide solution to such matters. The concept of public accountability and performance of functions takes in its ambit proper and timely action in accordance with law. Public duty and public obligation both are essentials of good administration whether by the State instrumentalities and/or by the financial institutions.

                  80. In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India [(2005) 8 SCC 202 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 23] this Court declared the dictum that State actions causing loss are actionable under public law and this is as a result of innovation to a new tool with the court, which are the protectors of civil liberty of the citizens and would ensure protection against devastating results of State action. The principles of public accountability and transparency in State action even in the case of appointment, which essentially must not lack bona fides were enforced by the Court. All these principles enunciated by the Court over a passage of time clearly mandate that public officers are answerable both for their inaction and irresponsible actions. What ought to have been done, if not done, responsibility should be fixed on the erring officers then alone the real public purpose of an answerable administration would be satisfied.

                  81. The doctrine of full faith and credit applies to the acts done by the officers and presumptive evidence of regularity of official acts done or performed, is apposite in faithful discharge of duties to elongate public purpose and to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed. It is a known fact that, in transactions of government business, none would own personal responsibility and decisions are leisurely taken at various levels (refer State of A.P. v. Food Corporation of India [(2004) 13 SCC 53 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 873] .)

                  82. Principle of public accountability is applicable to such officers/officials with all its vigour. Greater the power to decide, higher is the responsibility to be just and fair. The dimensions of administrative law permit judicial intervention in decisions, though of administrative nature, but are ex facie discriminatory. The adverse impact of lack of probity in discharge of public duties can result in varied defects not only in the decision-making process but in the decision as well. Every public officer is accountable for its decision and actions to the public in the larger interest and to the State administration in its governance.”

17. In Para Nos.17 & 18 in Lok Prahari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others : (2018) 6 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under :

                  “17. The resolve of “the People of India” to have a republican form of Government is a manifestation of the constitutional philosophy that does not recognise any arbitrary sovereign power and domination of citizens by the State. The republican liberty and the doctrine of equality is the central feature of the Indian democracy.

                  18. It is, therefore, axiomatic that in a democratic republican Government, public servants entrusted with duties of public nature must act in a manner that reflects that ultimate authority is vested in the citizens and it is to the citizens that holders of all public offices are eventually accountable. Such a situation would only be possible within a framework of equality and when all privileges, rights and benefits conferred on holders of public office are reasonable, rational and proportionate.”

18. In Para No.49 in the case of DIRECTIONS IN THE MATTER OF DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES, IN RE : (2025) 5 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the same, which is not extracted herein for the sake of brevity.

19. In the above premise, this Court is of the considered opinion that these two Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, W.P.No.4687 and 4691 of 2025 are allowed with a direction to the Respondent Authorities to permit registrations by processing the Sale Deeds presented by the Writ Petitioners. The Writ Petitioners shall submit the Sale Deeds for processing before the competent authority within eight weeks from today. From the date of presentation of the Sale Deeds, the competent authority namely the Sub- Registrar, Chintalapdui, Eluru District shall process the same in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of presentation of Sale Deeds and communicate the out-come within a week thereafter. There shall be a further direction to the District Collector (Respondent No.2) to delete the subject lands from the Prohibited Properties List under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 within four weeks from today.

20. Before parting with these cases, since the Office of the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate as well as the Department of Registration falls under the Department of Revenue and that the said Departments have not been implementing the law which had attained finality by way of judicial dicta, this Court is rather constrained to refer to the strong opinion expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the Constitutional obligation of the Executive to implement the Orders of the Constitutional Courts which have attained finality, since such Final Orders impose inescapable mandate on the Executive to execute or implement such Orders.

21. In State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari : (1961) 1 SCR 728, the Hon’ble Apex Court held at Para No.34 as under:

                  “34. Before concluding, we consider it proper to draw attention to one aspect of the case. It is of the essence of the rule of law that every authority within the State including the executive Government should consider itself bound by and obey the Law. It is fundamental to the system of polity that India has adopted and which is embodied in the Constitution that the Courts of the land are vested with the powers of interpreting the law and of applying it to the facts of the cases which are properly brought before them. If any party to the proceedings considers that any Court has committed any error, in the understanding of the law or in its application, resort must be had to such review or appeals as the law provides. When once an order has been passed which the Court has jurisdiction to pass, it is the duty of all persons bound by it to obey the order so long as it stands, and it would tend to the subversion of orderly administration and civil Government, if parties could disobey orders with impunity. If such is the position as regard private parties, the duty to obey is all the more imperative in the case of Governmental authorities, otherwise there would be a conflict between one branch of the State polity viz. the executive and another branch — the Judicial. If disobedience could go unchecked, it would result in orders of Courts ceasing to have any meaning and judicial power itself becoming a mockery. When the State Government obeys a law, or gives effect to an order of a Court passed against it, it is not doing anything which detracts from its dignity, but rather, invests the law and the Courts with the dignity which are their due, which enhances the prestige of the executive Government itself, in a democratic set-up. We consider that on the facts of this case there was no justification, legal or otherwise for the State Government to have rushed the notification under Section 3(1), when its application to modify or vacate the order for interim injunction was pending before the Subordinate Court. But more than that, when possibly by failure to appreciate their error, the notification had been published, and the propriety and legality of its action was brought up before the Court by an application under Order 39 Rule 2(3), the attitude taken up by the State Government and persisted in upto hearing before us, has been one which we can hardly commend. If the Government had deliberately intended to disobey the order of the Court, because for any reason they considered it wrong, their conduct deserves the severest condemnation. If on the other hand it was merely a case of inadvertence and arose out of error, nothing would have been lost and there was everything to be gained, even in the matter of the prestige of the Government, by a frank avowal of the error committed by them and an expression of regret for the lapse, and it is lamentable that even at the stage of the hearing before us, there was no trace of any such attitude.”

22. In Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India and Others : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1021, the Hon’ble Apex held at Para No.22 as under:

                  22. Power and accountability go hand in hand. While declaring that all citizens shall have the „right to information‟ under Section 3 of the Act, the co-relative „duty‟ in the form of obligation of public authorities is recognized in Section 4. The core of the right created under Section 3 in reality rests on the duty to perform statutory obligations. Public accountability is a crucial feature that governs the relationship between „duty bearers‟ and „right holders‟. Recognizing the importance of accountability as a measure of administrative law, this Court in Vijay Rajmohan v. CBI, held as follows:

                  “34. Accountability in itself is an essential principle of administrative law. Judicial review of administrative action will be effective and meaningful by ensuring accountability of the officer or authority in charge.

                  35. The principle of accountability is considered as a cornerstone of the human rights framework. It is a crucial feature that must govern the relationship between “duty bearers” in authority and “right holders” affected by their actions. Accountability of institutions is also one of the development goals adopted by the United Nations in 2015 and is also recognized as one of the six principles of the Citizens Charter Movement.

                  36. Accountability has three essential constituent dimensions : (i) responsibility, (ii) answerability, and (iii) enforceability. Responsibility requires the identification of duties and performance obligations of individuals in authority and with authorities. Answerability requires reasoned decision-making so that those affected by their decisions, including the public, are aware of the same. Enforceability requires appropriate corrective and remedial action against lack of responsibility and accountability to be taken. Accountability has a corrective function, making it possible to address individual or collective grievances. It enables action against officials or institutions for dereliction of duty. It also has a preventive function that helps to identify the procedure or policy which has become non- functional and to improve upon it.”

23. In the above premise, in public interest, with a view to prevent to repetition of the same errors by the Executive, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions:

                  i. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Respondent No.1) is directed to prepare a Legal Module for guidance to all the District Collectors and their Subordinate Officers in the Department of Revenue as well as all the Sub-Registrars and Registrars and also the Inspector General, Stamps and Registration and communicate such Module to all the Officers concerned in order to appraise the legal position while the Officers deal with the cases of similar nature. This shall be done by taking the assistance from the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

                  ii. The said Module shall consist of a Brief Note, the statutory provisions and the cases referred to herein below:

                  a) Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti Chittoor District and another vs. K. Guravaiah and another (W.A.No.950 of 2007): 2008 SCC OnLine AP 743 : (2009) 2 ALD 250 (DB) – Para Nos.14 to 19.

                  b) State of A.P vs. P. Usha Rani, Chittoor District and another (W.A.No.1924 of 2017) : 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 847 : (2018) 6 ALD 397 (DB) – Para Nos.7 to 9.

                  c) State of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Yashoda and another (W.A.No.1920 of 2017) : 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 863 : (2019) 4 ALD 413 (DB) – Para No.9.

                  d) The Govt. of A.P and three others vs. T. Krishna Murthy (W.A.No.955 of 2017) : 2019 SCC OnLine Hyd 312 : (2018) 6 ALD 686 (DB) – Para Nos.6 to 8.

                  Note: The Hon’ble Supreme Court has confirmed the Judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in SLP (Civil) Diary No.5795 of 2019 vide Order dated 05.03.2019.

                  e) State of Andhra Pradesh vs Y. Prabhakar Naidu (W.A.No.921 of 2021) : 2022 SCC OnLine AP 109 : 2022 (3) ALD 1 (DB) – Para Nos.7 to 10.

                  iii. The said Module shall be prepared within six weeks from today and submit the same to the Court for its perusal.

                  iv. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Respondent No.1) shall place the Legal Module on record well before the next listing.

                  v. List on 01.04.2026 for consideration of the Legal Module.

24. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.