Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 19-04-2018 in case of petitioner name Siri Nivasam Mutual Aided Hous vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
| |

Land Registration and Section 22A: Supreme Court Directs High Court to Decide Pending Challenge

Updated on

The case of Siri Nivasam Mutual Aided House Building Society Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. deals with the restriction on land registration under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908. The Supreme Court examined the validity of the Andhra Pradesh government’s list of prohibited properties and directed the High Court to decide on the pending challenge to the law.

The appeals arose from property owners’ grievances that they were not allowed to register land transactions due to restrictions imposed under Section 22A. The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had earlier framed multiple questions concerning the scope of these restrictions and the government’s obligations.

Background of the Case

The appellants sought registration of land transactions, which the authorities denied under Section 22A(1) of the Registration Act. They argued that the prohibition was arbitrary and violated their property rights. The High Court addressed various aspects of the law and formulated several directions on how authorities should implement Section 22A.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioners’ Arguments (Landowners and Societies)

The appellants contended that:

  • The government’s list of prohibited properties was not properly communicated to the public.
  • Property owners were being denied registration without valid justification.
  • Many affected landowners had no prior knowledge that their properties were included in the restricted list.
  • The government should have provided a transparent process to challenge the classification of their properties.

Respondents’ Arguments (State of Andhra Pradesh)

The State argued that:

  • Properties were listed based on legal prohibitions under various statutes.
  • The lists were made available on government websites and at local registration offices.
  • Owners had the option to verify their property status before initiating transactions.
  • The prohibition was necessary to prevent fraudulent transfers and protect government-owned and public trust properties.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court reviewed the directions issued by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and acknowledged that the primary legal issue—the constitutionality of Section 22A—was still pending before the High Court.

  • The Court recognized that landowners needed an effective mechanism to verify and challenge their property’s inclusion in the restricted list.
  • The Court found merit in concerns about rural landowners lacking internet access to verify the list online.
  • The Court emphasized that provisional registrations already granted should remain subject to the final High Court ruling.
  • The Supreme Court directed that new transactions should not take place without the High Court’s approval.

Key Observations by the Court

The Supreme Court stated:

“Since the main issue is pending before the High Court, we deem it appropriate to remit these matters to the High Court. Those persons who are parties before this Court but not parties to the pending writ petitions in the High Court may get themselves impleaded by way of appropriate application(s) for impleadment/intervention etc., or may even file fresh writ petitions.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals and remitted the matters to the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It ruled:

“The registration already permitted by this Court shall be treated as a provisional registration subject to the result of the writ petitions now pending before the High Court.”

Conclusion

This judgment highlights the ongoing legal uncertainty surrounding Section 22A of the Registration Act and its impact on landowners. By directing the High Court to decide the constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court has provided interim relief while ensuring that the matter is adjudicated comprehensively.


Petitioner Name: Siri Nivasam Mutual Aided House Building Society Ltd. & Ors..
Respondent Name: State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Navin Sinha.
Place Of Incident: Andhra Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 19-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Siri Nivasam Mutual vs State of Andhra Prad Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 19-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category

Similar Posts