Two Telugu Governments commit Contempt of Court every time
Violates the Constitutional Right to Property
Two Telugu Governments have disregarded the Constitution of India totally,
despite the High Court Judgement. The judiciary emphasized that depriving a
citizen of the right to alienate their private property through executive instructions
violates the Constitutional Right to Property guaranteed under Article 300-A.
There is one simple sub-section that has become a hotbed of corruption in both
Telugu states, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. They commit Contempt of Court
every day, in each district or wherever there is a transaction for transfer of property.
It has been happening since 2013.
Before Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy issued comprehensive binding directions
applicable across all districts of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, there was a total
ban on insisting on NOCs, which made the common man have to pay bribes.
Registering officers shall not insist on NOCs from Revenue authorities as a
precondition for accepting documents
In both Andhra and Telangana, the legal and socio-economic human, administrative,
and legal suffering caused by the misuse of Section 22-A of the Registration Act,
1908, persists, despite the judgment of the combined Judgement.
Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, is said to have been intended as a
statutory shield to protect public, religious, and government lands from fraudulent
transfers, but it became a widespread tool of administrative harassment across
Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Landowners with clear titles found themselves
trapped in perpetual litigation due to arbitrary “prohibitors lists” issued by Revenue
Officials without statutory authority. Justice Nagarjan Reddy, the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Raavi Satish v. State of AP (2012), has given a most useful
judgment to curb executive overreach and restore property rights, examining the
systemic issues, historical misuse, and the comprehensive directives.
Auto-blocking of survey numbers (Dharani & Portal Reforms, of Telangana):
While Telangana introduced digital land records via the Dharani portal, issues
surrounding auto-blocking of survey numbers under Section 22-A without prior
statutory notification or hearing continue to mirror the administrative overreach
condemned in this judgment.
Dots in RSR are great doubts (Resurvey & De-notifications): Andhra Pradesh
has faced persistent challenges regarding “dots” in RSR (Re-Settlement Registers)
Records, eventually prompting specific legislative enactments (such as the AP Dots
Lands Act) to clear backlogs that originated from the exact administrative failures
condemned in this judgment.
Extortion and Administrative Harassment
Property owners facing medical emergencies, weddings, or educational expenses
were unable to sell or mortgage their own legally acquired lands. Even when holding
valid Pattadar Passbooks and decades of registered title deeds, Sub-Registrars
refused to accept transaction documents simply because a local Tahsildar listed the
land as “Government Land” or “AWD” (Assessed Waste Dry).
The court noted a systemic breakdown where citizens were forced into an endless
loop between the Revenue Department (Tahsildars/Collectors) and the Registration
Department (Sub-Registrars). Sub-Registrars illegally demanded “No Objection
Certificates” (NOCs)—a requirement completely alien to the Registration
Act—forcing citizens to spend years chasing bureaucrats for relief.
Heavy Disproportionate Burden:
Ex-Servicemen & Freedom Fighters: Veterans and freedom fighters who served
the nation were denied the right to sell lands assigned to them, even after the
mandatory 10-year lock-in period had long expired.
Political Sufferers: Heirs of freedom fighters and political sufferers were blocked
from executing sales despite explicit state policies (G.O.Ms.No. 1745) permitting
uninhibited transfer.
Landless Poor Assignees: Assignees under pre-1954 (Andhra) and pre-1958
(Telangana) orders were treated as violators of the Assigned Lands Act (Act 9 of
1977), even though no non-alienation condition existed in their original pattas.
Danger of ‘Dots’
Treating century-old blank/dotted entries in Re-Settlement Registers (RSR) as proof of State
ownership. The impact is that legitimate owners with registered deeds dating back to the
1930s/1940s were stripped of their right to sell without any judicial trial.
State officials have blocked property registrations
The issue is Assessed Waste Dry (AWD). Classifying private lands as “AWD” without
filing civil suits or recovering physical possession is a problem. State officials have blocked
property registrations but took no legal steps to assert title or recover land, creating a legal
limbo.
The Officers are refusing registrations based on informal prohibitory lists sent by
Collectors rather than publishing formal Gazette Notifications under Sec 22-A(2). Executive
opinions are replacing statutory law, making informal departmental letters more powerful
than public statutes.
Defiance of Judicial Precedents. Sub-Registrars repeatedly raised the same grounds
of rejection that High Court benches had repeatedly declared illegal in previous judgments.
Thus, litigants were forced to approach the High Court again and again for individual relief,
clogging the judiciary.
Judicial Frustration, Disregard for Article 300-A:
As noted in the judgment, out of approximately 35,000 Writ Petitions filed in
the High Court in the year 2012 alone, 3,360 petitions (~10%) were filed
solely against Sub-Registrars refusing to register documents under
Section 22-A.
Denial of State Revenue: The court observed that while attempting to block
registrations under arbitrary objections, the State Government was actively
denying itself massive stamp duty and registration fee revenues, while
achieving zero protection of actual public land.
The judiciary emphasized that depriving a citizen of the right to alienate their
private property through executive instructions violates the Constitutional
Right to Property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
For millions of property owners across Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the process
of registering a sale deed or property transfer frequently turned into an administrative
nightmare. Sub-Registrars routinely refused to receive or process registration
documents, relying blindly on informal “prohibitory lists” prepared by revenue
authorities such as Tahsildars and District Collectors.
[Based on Case law: Raavi Satish & Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by
its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department & Others (W.P. No. 30526 of 2012 &
Batch, High Court of A.P., Decided on 31-12-2012).]
To be continued…
Law professor and eminent columnist
Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu, author of 63 books (in Telugu and English), Formerly Central Information Commissioner, Professor of NALSAR University, Bennett University (near Delhi), presently Professor and Advisor, Mahindra University, Hyderabad. Studied in Masoom Ali High School, AVV Junior College, CKM College, and Kakatiya University in Warangal. Madabhushi did LL.M., MCJ., and the highest law degree, LL.D. He won 4 Gold Medals at Kakatiya University and Osmania University.
Email: cicsridhar@gmail.com
Mobile: 8447651505
