- Congress high command mulls key posts to Konda couple
- MMC identifies 39 Ganesh immersion points in 3 zones
- CM Revanth extends Vinayaka Chaturthi greetings to people
- Indiramma Towers LIG allotment letters to be issued this week
- Advanced robotic surgery services in sarkari hosps in 6 mths: minister Damodar Raja Narasimha
- Xi pushes China’s open-source AI vision at BRICS
- Putin proposes grain market for BRICS nations
- Ex schoolmate meets Modi, seeks CBI probe into alleged land grab
All parties have fingers in Section 22-A mess
In Short
A political controversy has erupted in Telangana over the wrongful listing of private and farmers' properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, with ruling and opposition parties trading blame.
Share :
All parties have fingers in Section 22-A mess
Hyderabad: The raging controversy over wrongful listing of properties of private parties and farmers under Section 22-A of the Registration Act 1908 has triggered a blame game in Telangana, with the ruling Congress and opposition parties trading allegations over careless inclusions in prohibited list. All told, the allegations suggest that there are wheels within wheels in most cases.
While the Bharat Rashtra Samithi and the Bharatiya Janata Party have accused the Congress government of causing hardship to people by keeping or moving large tracts of private land under Section 22-A, the ruling party maintains that it did not add even a single new acre to the list after coming to power.
Revenue Minister Ponguleti Srinivas Reddy has claimed that the Section 22-A list was actually reduced by 47,440 acres after the Congress government assumed office, following corrections to erroneous classifications. He said officials merely uploaded data inherited from the previous administration and that no fresh lands were added to the prohibited list.Regardless of political arguments, thousands of genuine property owners continue to face difficulties because their lands figure in the Section 22-A list.
The controversy has also raised questions about how successive governments handled land classification, regularisation, and registration and whether mistakes in official records have resulted in genuine owners being made to suffer. Section 22-A was intended to protect specified categories of land meant for public and institutional purposes, including government properties, burial grounds, parks, playgrounds and other community assets. However, mishandling of the provision has complicated issues over the years due to changes in land laws, urban expansion, and various regularisation schemes.
The present situation cannot be attributed to a single government or a single decision. Under various dispensations, the then administration has issued orders, classified properties, and undertaken regularisation programmes, each leaving a complicated legacy of disputed and restricted lands.
Among those affected are farmers whose lands were acquired by the government, Bhoodan beneficiaries and people who purchased properties believing that the titles were genuine. Once a property enters the prohibited list, owners may face difficulties in selling, gifting, mortgaging or otherwise transferring it.
At the same time, allegations have repeatedly surfaced that politicians, middlemen, and officials exploited weaknesses in the system by facilitating transactions involving prohibited properties. Such allegations have added another dimension to the controversy, with ordinary property owners claiming that they are bearing the consequences of irregularities committed by others.
Section 22-A was first introduced in undivided Andhra Pradesh through the Registration (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act 4 of 1999). The original provision, which came into force in September 1999, empowered Sub-Registrars to refuse registration of documents considered ‘opposed to public policy’.
The provision was introduced amid concerns over encroachment and illegal registration of government lands. An incident involving alleged encroachment on Ghatkesar Railway Station land, where encroachers reportedly managed to get properties registered in their names, was among the developments cited in the context of the measure.
The original provision faced legal challenges. In December 2005, the Andhra Pradesh High Court struck it down as unconstitutional, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Basant Nahata judgment.
The state subsequently re-enacted Section 22-A through Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act No. 19 of 2007, with retrospective effect from June 19, 2007. The revised provision replaced the broad “public policy” wording with specific categories of prohibited properties. The amended provision broadly covers assigned lands, government lands, endowment and Waqf properties, ceiling-surplus lands, and certain disputed or specifically notified properties.
