The Legislative Roots and Impact of Section 22-A
Instead of safeguarding genuine government property, this practice created massive
litigation. In 2012 alone, 3,360 Writ Petitions—accounting for nearly 10% of all
cases filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh—were directed against the arbitrary
refusal of Sub-Registrars to register property transactions. Innocent citizens who had
purchased lands under registered deeds decades prior, held valid Pattadar
Passbooks, and paid taxes, were suddenly informed that their private property was
deemed “Government Land” or “Assessed Waste”.
Why has this draconian revenue law come up? To understand the root cause of this
harassment, one must trace the legislative evolution of Section 22-A of the
Registration Act, 1908. The original Section 22-A (AP Act 4 of 1999): empowered
the State Government to declare by notification that the registration of any document
was “opposed to public policy”.
Judicial Invalidation (Basant Nahata Case):
In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata (2005), the Supreme Court declared this
unbridled power unconstitutional, observing that substantive legislative policy cannot
be delegated to executive discretion or subordinate legislation. Following this, the AP
High Court struck down the original Section 22-A in December 2005.
The Legislature re-introduced Section 22-A with specific categorizations:
– Section 22-A(1)(a): Transfers prohibited under State/Central statutes.
– Section 22-A(1)(b): Transfers of lands owned by State/Central
Governments executed by unauthorized persons.
– Section 22-A(1)(c): Transfers exceeding 10 years of Endowment/Wakf
properties by unauthorized persons.
– Section 22-A(1)(d): Surplus lands declared under Urban/Agricultural
Land Ceiling Acts.
– Section 22-A(1)(e): Properties in which State/Central Governments
have avowed or accrued interests.
Under Section 22-A(2), for properties falling under clause (e), the State Government
must publish a formal Gazette Notification detailing the properties based on reasons
furnished by District Collectors. Despite clear statutory language, Revenue and
Registration officials routinely bypassed the law, subjecting citizens to four primary
grounds of harassment:
Damaging “Dots” in the Re-Settlement Register (RSR)
In many districts, historical Re-Settlement Registers (often dating back to 1909)
contained blank columns or “dots” in the ownership section. Revenue officials
arbitrarily classified all such survey numbers as Government lands and instructed
Sub-Registrars to block transactions. Justice Nagarjuna Reddy reiterated
established law: mere entries or dots in revenue records do not constitute conclusive
proof of title, especially against decades of registered conveyances.
Assessed Waste Dry (AWD) Lands
Revenue authorities placed survey numbers classified as “Assessed Waste Dry” on
prohibitory lists. The Court highlighted the absurdity of this stance: while revenue
authorities blocked property transfers, they took no legal steps to recover possession
or assert title in civil court, merely using registration blockades to harass owners
holding valid passbooks.
Misapplication of Non-Alienation Clauses on Assigned Lands
Under the AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977),
assigned lands cannot be transferred if assigned to landless poor with a non-
alienation condition. However, revenue officials indiscriminately blocked transactions
without checking key legal exemptions:
Cut-off Dates: Prohibition conditions were introduced on 18-06-1954 (Andhra
Area – G.O.Ms.No. 1142) and 25-07-1958 (Telangana Area – G.O.Ms.No.
1406). Assignments prior to these dates carried no statutory bar on transfer.
Ex-Servicemen & Freedom Fighters: Under G.O.Ms.No. 1117 (1993) and
G.O.Ms.No. 1045 (2004), Ex-servicemen and Freedom Fighters are legally
entitled to sell assigned lands after 10 years.
Political Sufferers: Under G.O.Ms.No. 1745 (1959), political sufferers are
permitted to sell assigned lands without any time restriction or condition.
Market Value Assignments: Lands assigned on payment of market value do
not fall under Act 9 of 1977 restrictions.
Extortion of “No Objection Certificates” (NOCs)
Sub-Registrars routinely refused to accept documents unless citizens produced a
“No Objection Certificate” (NOC) from Tahsildars or Collectors. The Court held that
insistence on NOCs is completely alien to the Registration Act. Revenue
communications do not carry the binding force of a statutory Gazette notification.
Binding Judicial Directions (Raavi Satish Case)
To put an end to this unabated litigation, Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy issued
comprehensive binding directions applicable across all districts of Telangana and
Andhra Pradesh:
- Total Ban on Insisting for NOCs: Registering officers shall not insist on
NOCs from Revenue authorities as a precondition for accepting documents. - Invalidity of Informal Prohibitory Lists: Registration cannot be refused
merely because a property appears on an informal list citing RSR dots, AWD
status, or assigned land claims. - Mandatory Gazette Notification for Clause (e): In the absence of a formal
Gazette Notification published under Section 22-A(2), registration cannot be
refused for RSR dots or AWD lands. - Verification of Pre-1954 / Pre-1958 Assignments: Lands assigned prior to
18-06-1954 (Andhra) or 25-07-1958 (Telangana) must be registered without
objection. - Rule of Benefit of Doubt: Where the exact date of assignment is unclear,
benefit of doubt goes to the property owner. Sub-Registrars must request
proof from Revenue authorities within a stipulated timeframe; if no proof of
post-1954/1958 assignment is produced, registration must proceed. - Ex-Servicemen & Freedom Fighters (10-Year Rule): Assignments to Ex-
servicemen and Freedom Fighters must be registered freely once 10 years
have elapsed from the date of assignment. - Absolute Freedom for Political Sufferers: Political sufferers or their legal
heirs are entitled to sell assigned lands at any time without restriction. - Written Refusal Orders under Section 71: Sub-Registrars cannot verbally
refuse documents. They must receive the document and pass a reasoned
written rejection order under Section 71, enabling the party to file an appeal
under Section 72.
[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).]
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
