Section 22-A(1)(C) Registration Act | Writ Petition Inadmissible for Endowment Land Disputes Without Exhausting Endowments Tribunal Remedy : AP HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that disputes over whether land is classified as endowment property - thus prohibited from registration under Section 22-A(1)(C) of the Registration Act, 1908 - cannot be adjudicated through a writ petition under Article 226. Instead, the court held that such disputes must be resolved by the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The judgment underscores the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in title disputes involving endowment lands and reinforces the statutory remedy available under the Endowments Act.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, P S Rao Housing and Resorts Private Ltd., purchased an extent of 3.86 acres in Sy.No.34/1A-1, Gudepuvalasa Village, Bogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District, through a registered sale deed (Doc.No.6084 of 2012) dated 09.08.2012. The petitioner subsequently obtained layout approval (L.P.No.53/2013) from the Chief Urban Planner on 23.12.2013 and sold portions of the property to third parties under the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. However, when the petitioner attempted to register a subsequent sale deed (P.No.2624 dated 02.08.2022), the Sub-Registrar refused registration on the ground that the property was listed under the prohibited list pursuant to Section 22-A(1)(C) of the Registration Act, 1908, as endowment land.

Key Facts

• 09.08.2012: Petitioner purchases the land via registered sale deed (Doc.No.6084/2012) from Vijaya Lakshmi.
• 23.12.2013: Chief Urban Planner approves layout plan (L.P.No.53/2013).
• 02.08.2022: Sub-Registrar refuses registration of subsequent sale deed (P.No.2624) citing prohibition under Section 22-A(1)(C).
• 02.07.2024: Petitioner submits representation to authorities seeking deletion of the land from the prohibited list.
• 04.09.2024: High Court directs respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation (W.P.No.19268/2024).
• 11.11.2024: 6th Respondent (Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department) rejects the petitioner’s application (Rc.No.A1/2016/2022), upholding the prohibition.

Procedural History

• 12.06.2024: Petitioner files W.P.No.26889/2024 challenging the impugned order dated 11.11.2024.
• 29.01.2023: 5th Respondent (Commissioner, Endowments Department) writes to the District Collector (Ref: L1/COE-18022(35)/17/2022), stating that the land in Sy.No.34/1A-1 is neither endowment nor government land, based on the Re-Survey Register (RSR).
• 27.06.2007: Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora Trust is registered as a Public Charitable Institution under Section 6(c)(i) of the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987 (Rc.No.J2/18817/2007).
• 30.07.2015: The Trust’s properties, including Acs.22.06 cents in Sy.No.30A3A, 30A3E, are recorded in the 43(1) register under the Act (A1/2219/2015).

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

• The petitioner contended that the land was purchased through a valid registered sale deed and that the respondents failed to establish its endowment status at the time of registration.
• The Re-Survey Register (RSR) and revenue records confirm that the land is private, not endowment.
• The 5th Respondent (Commissioner, Endowments Department) had recommended deletion of the land from the prohibited list in a letter dated 29.01.2023.
• The petitioner argued that the impugned order (11.11.2024) was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

For the Respondents

• The 6th Respondent (Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department) asserted that the land was registered under Section 43(1) of the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987, and forms part of the Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora Trust, a Public Charitable Institution.
• The revenue records do not confer title, and the RSR is only prima facie evidence.
• The Full Bench judgment in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2016(2) ALD 236) held that disputes over entries in the 43(1) register must be adjudicated by the Endowments Tribunal under Section 45 read with Section 87 of the Act.
• The respondents relied on recent Division Bench judgments (W.P.(PIL) No.70/2022 and W.A.Nos.888 & 899/2022) to argue that the Endowments Tribunal is the appropriate forum for such disputes.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Quashing of the impugned order (Rc.No.A1/2016/2022 dated 11.11.2024) rejecting the deletion of the land from the prohibited list.
• Direction to the respondents to delete the land from the prohibited list under Section 22-A(1)(C) of the Registration Act, 1908.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the High Court, under Article 226, could adjudicate a dispute over the deletion of land from the prohibited list under Section 22-A(1)(C) of the Registration Act, 1908, where the land was alleged to be endowment property under the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987, or whether such disputes must be resolved by the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of the Act.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• The petitioner relied on the revenue records and RSR, which indicated the land was private, not endowment.
• The 5th Respondent’s letter dated 29.01.2023 supported the petitioner’s claim that the land was not endowment property.
• The impugned order was arbitrary and violative of natural justice, as it failed to consider the petitioner’s evidence.

For the Respondents

• The respondents contended that the revenue records do not confer title, and the RSR is only prima facie evidence.
• The land was registered under Section 43(1) of the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987, and any dispute over its status must be adjudicated by the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87.
• The Full Bench judgment in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and subsequent Division Bench judgments (W.P.(PIL) No.70/2022 and W.A.Nos.888 & 899/2022) established that the High Court cannot entertain disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction for such matters.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the statutory framework under the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987 and the Registration Act, 1908, and observed:

1. Section 43(10) of the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987 provides that entries in the register of endowment properties are presumptive evidence of their status until the contrary is proved. Any aggrieved party must approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 45 read with Section 87 for modification or annulment of such entries.

2. The Full Bench judgment in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2016(2) ALD 236) held that the Committee constituted under the Act is empowered to examine records and pass a reasoned order either confirming or deleting properties from the notified list. Such orders are binding unless challenged before a competent court of law.

3. The Division Bench judgments in W.P.(PIL) No.70/2022 and W.A.Nos.888 & 899/2022 reiterated that the remedy for deletion of an entry in the register lies before the Endowments Tribunal, not the High Court under Article 226.

The Court emphasized:

"In the present case, admittedly, the property in question which the petitioner claimed as owner has been registered and brought on the register maintained under Section 43 of the Endowments Act and, as per the judgments of the division bench referred supra, and in pursuance of Section 43(10) of the Act 30 of 1987, the remedy of the petitioner is before the Endowments Tribunal constituted under Section 87 of the Act 30 of 1987 and this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of facts, which could only be gone into before Endowment Tribunal under Section 87 of the Act 30 of 1987."

The Court further noted that the revenue records and RSR do not confer title, and the petitioner’s reliance on them was misplaced. The Endowments Tribunal is the appropriate forum to adjudicate disputes over the status of endowment properties.

The Verdict

The Writ Petition (W.P.No.26889/2024) was dismissed. The Court held that:

• The petitioner’s remedy lies before the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987, not under Article 226.
• The High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction for matters involving endowment properties.
• The impugned order (Rc.No.A1/2016/2022 dated 11.11.2024) was upheld, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory remedy before the Endowments Tribunal.
• No costs were awarded.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Endowments Tribunal Is the Exclusive Forum for Disputes Over Prohibited Land

• Practitioners must note that disputes over whether land is endowment property - and thus prohibited from registration under Section 22-A(1)(C) of the Registration Act, 1908 - cannot be adjudicated under Article 226.
• The A.P. Endowments Act, 1987 provides a statutory remedy under Section 87, and the Endowments Tribunal is the exclusive forum for such disputes.
• Writ petitions challenging prohibition orders will be dismissed if the land is registered under Section 43 of the Endowments Act, as the High Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of fact.

Revenue Records and RSR Are Not Conclusive Proof of Title

• Revenue records and the Re-Survey Register (RSR) are only prima facie evidence and do not confer title.
• The presumption under Section 43(10) of the Endowments Act favors the register of endowment properties, and the burden lies on the aggrieved party to prove otherwise before the Endowments Tribunal.
• Practitioners should avoid relying solely on revenue records in disputes involving endowment lands and must exhaust the statutory remedy before approaching the High Court.

Procedural Compliance Is Mandatory

• The Full Bench and Division Bench judgments have clearly delineated the remedy for aggrieved parties: approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87.
• Non-compliance with this procedure will result in dismissal of writ petitions on the ground of alternative remedy.
• Practitioners must ensure that all representations and applications are submitted to the appropriate authorities before invoking writ jurisdiction to avoid procedural dismissals.