Section 22-A and prohibited properties in Telangana: Evolution of the legal framework

Over the past few years, property owners in Telangana have been facing difficulties in registering the transfer of their respective immovable properties on account of being listed in the records of prohibited properties, which has popularly come to be known as the ‘Section 22-A list’. The issue is particularly significant in Hyderabad and its surrounding districts, where Government claims, Endowment and Wakf interests, ceiling proceedings, court attachments and long-standing title disputes assume greater significance given the extraordinary appreciation in land values over the last 25 years.

Introduction of Section 22-A

Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 was first introduced through the Registration (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1999. The original provision empowered the State Government to notify that the registration of a document or class of documents was opposed to public policy and required the registering officer to refuse registration.

A corresponding provision as applicable in the State of Rajasthan was struck down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata [AIR 2005 SC 3401]. The Apex Court held that the expression ‘public policy’ was vague and uncertain, did not provide adequate guidelines to the delegate and suffered from excessive delegation. Following Basant Nahata’s case, the High Court of the then united Andhra Pradesh also struck down the corresponding provision as applicable to the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh.

The present Section 22-A was subsequently introduced through the Registration (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2007 (‘2007 Amendment’), with effect from 20 June 2007. Instead of the broad expression ‘public policy’, the amended provision identifies specific categories of properties and documents in respect of which registration of instruments transfer the properties is prohibited.

The five categories under Section 22-A as mentioned in the 2007 Amendment are as follows:

Section 22-A (1) contains five categories. Clauses (a) to (d) concern properties having a specified statutory or legal character, whereas clause (e) operates through a State Government notification.

Section	Nature of land/property	Example
22-A(1)(a)	Property whose alienation or transfer is prohibited under a State or Central statute.	Lands assigned to landless poor and whose transfer is prohibited under the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and lands classified as Kharij Khata.
22-A(1)(b)	Property owned by the State or Central Government, where the transfer is not executed by a person legally authorised to do so.	Lands belonging to Government bodies like Telangana Housing Board. This section also covers lakes and ponds classified as Government Shikam.
22-A(1)(c)	Property belonging to Religious or Charitable Endowments or Wakf property, where the proposed transfer is not legally authorised to do so.	Lands belonging to devasthanam boards, donated to devotional activities, conditional inams where the condition is no longer adhered to.
22-A(1)(d)	Agricultural or urban land declared surplus under the applicable Land Reforms or Urban Land Ceiling legislation.	Lands vested in the Government on account of surrender of surplus lands.
22-A(1)(e)	Property in which the specified interests of the Central or State Government, local bodies, educational, cultural, religious or charitable institutions, or properties attached by courts or tax authorities are likely to be adversely affected.	Properties attached by tax departments, CBI, ED, SARFAESI recovery proceedings

Under Section 22-A(2), properties falling under Clause (e) require formal State Government notification based on detailed descriptions and justifications provided by District Collectors. Section 22A(3) clarifies that once notified, registering officers are legally mandated to refuse registration. Section 22A(4) provides for a procedure to de-notify the properties notified under Clause (e), either on its own initiative (suo motu), via application by an aggrieved person, or to comply with court orders.

The Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary guidelines:

A Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department [(2016) 2 ALD 236], considered the entire scheme of Section 22-A and issued directions while interpreting the departmental guidelines issued by the Government vide Revenue Department Circular Memo No. G1/19131/05, dated 14 September 2007 (‘Circular’).

The Full Bench, while referring to the Circular, directed that the authorities preparing prohibited property lists as per the guidelines must clearly identify the relevant clause under which each property is classified. In relation to clause (a), the applicable statute must be identified. In relation to clause (b), the Government body claiming ownership must be identified. For properties under clauses (c) and (d), the relevant Endowment, Wakf or ceiling records must accompany the lists.

The Full Bench also directed that information concerning prohibited properties be made available through the Registration Department's website. A person seeking information about whether a property is included in the prohibited lists should be able to obtain the relevant information and, where necessary, take steps for its deletion.

The Court further made an important distinction regarding notification. No separate notification under Section 22-A (2) is required for properties falling under clauses (a) to (d). In contrast, properties falling under clause (e) require a notification by the State Government. Such notification must contain a full description of the property and be published in the Official Gazette.

The Full Bench explained that clause (b) deals with property actually owned by the State or Central Government, whereas clause (e) deals with property in which the Government or specified institutions claim an ‘avowed or accrued interest’. Consequently, a mere Government claim over a property does not automatically make the property prohibited under clause (b), but the same falls under clause (e), requiring a specific notification to that effect.

The Full Bench has also made clear that registering officers should not act upon prohibited-property lists received directly from authorities other than those contemplated under the prescribed guidelines. For example, as per the Circular, the prohibited list under (c) dealing with endowments and waqf must be signed by the Commissioner, Endowments Department or the Secretary, Waqf Board, as the case may be. The decision clarified that the prohibition is effective only when the prohibitory list is received from the officers mentioned in the Circular.

Section 22-A does not determine title

The fact that a property is included in a prohibited list does not, by itself, constitute a judicial declaration of title of the authorities or institutions on behalf of whom the prohibition list is issued. Section 22-A does not necessarily establish that the Government, Endowment, Wakf or other claimant has title over such prohibited properties.

The Full Bench recognised that the Registration Department cannot become a forum for adjudicating disputed title. Where a property properly falls within clauses (a) to (d), an aggrieved party must approach the competent civil court to establish his/her title and/or challenge the underlying claim of the authorities claimed/declared the said properties are prohibited under Section 22-A.

The constitutional validity of the present Section 22-A was subsequently considered by a Division Bench in Invecta Technologies Private Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine TS 4565], vide judgementdated 19 October 2023. In this case, the High Court of Telangana rejected a challenge based, among other things, on Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law. The High Court distinguished deprivation of property from refusal to register a document. It held that registration does not confer any title and refusal to register a document under Section 22-A does not, by itself, deprive a person of the right to hold or enjoy property.

What should a property owner examine?

When a property is shown in a prohibited-property list, the first step should be to identify the precise statutory basis of the entry.

The following questions are particularly relevant:

a)      Under which sub-clause of Section 22-A(1) has the property been classified?

b)      What is the underlying statute, order, register or proceeding supporting the classification?

c)       Which authority furnished the property details to the Registration Department?

d)     Does the entry cover the entire survey number or only a specified extent?

e)      If clause (e) is relied upon, then whether the State Government issued the required notification and whether it has been published in the Official Gazette or not?

f)       If the property concerns Endowment or Wakf land, do the relevant statutory records or Gazette support the claim?

g)      If the property concerns ceiling proceedings, what orders were passed and was possession actually taken in accordance with law? For example, the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was repealed in the year 2008 and only the surplus land possessed by the Government before such repeal would vest with the Government.

The remedy should then follow the nature of the entry. For clauses (a) to (d), the underlying statutory or title dispute ordinarily must be addressed before the competent judicial forum. For clause (e), the statutory grievance mechanism before a committee constituted under Section 22-A (4) must be adhered to for denotification.

Conclusion

Section 22-A does not determine property ownership. Rather, it determines whether an instrument/document relating to that property is eligible for registration. Since a sale cannot be effectively completed, the provision has significant practical consequences. The framework laid down in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and subsequently affirmed in Invecta Technologies continues to govern the field. Accordingly, any property included in the prohibited list must be examined by tracing the entry to the relevant sub-clause and its source, and the issue must then be addressed before the appropriate forum, a process that is often time-consuming.

For this reason, Section 22-A should form part of every due diligence checklist. It is not a concern for purchasers alone. A seller who discovers a prohibited-list entry only after executing an agreement of sale or receiving an advance may find himself unable to perform the contract. Until the entry is removed or resolved, the seller may face claims for refund of the advance, damages, or even a suit for specific performance.

Both parties should therefore verify the status of the relevant survey number and extent at the outset of negotiations and again immediately before registration. This is particularly important because an encumbrance certificate does not disclose a Section 22-A entry. Further, no other document (beyond the list maintained under Section 22-A) evidences the prohibited properties unless the instrument/document is submitted by the parties to the SRO/MRO for registration. Although reports suggest that certain relaxations may be introduced for properties developed pursuant to municipal approvals, Section 22-A is likely to remain an integral part of the registration framework. Consequently, a Section 22-A search should stand alongside title investigation as a threshold element of due diligence, ensuring that transactions are not derailed at the final stage.

[The authors are Partner and Associate Partner in Commercial Disputes and Corporate & M&A practices, respectively, at Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, Hyderabad]