Disposed

Balumuri Venkata Sobhana Chalapathi Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Nov 2020WP/14754/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged denial of valuation by Sub Registrar. High Court allowed liberty to seek information under RTI Act regarding market value and registration objections within two weeks, directing the Registrar to respond similarly.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to seek information under RTI Act regarding market value and registration objections from 3rd respondent within two weeks, directing statute obligation to comply.

Balumuri Venkata Sobhana Chalapathi Rao, Vs… — RTI and Transparency | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO WRIT PETITION No.14754 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not furnishing valuation and not receiving any deed of conveyance, including Sale Deed for registration connected to the petitioner’s landed property to an extent of Ac. 4.03 cents in Sy.No. 334-2B1A of A. Konduru Revenue Village and Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to furnish valuation certificate as per Basic Value Register, receive and register the proposed document in respect of subject property.

¶4

The Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land an extent of Ac. 4.03 cents situated in Sy.No. 334-2B1A of A. Konduru Revenue Village and Mandal, Krishna District, acquired the same under a Gift Settlement Deed vide document No. 663/1997 dated 29.03.1997 from his donor by name Kotagiri Venkateswara Rao and came into possession thereof. The subject property is ancestral property of the donor. The donor of the petitioner is the paternal grand father of wife of petitioner. The Revenue authorities also granted Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in favour of the petitioner and his name is duly mutated in all revenue records. In view of family disputes a Revocation Deed dt. 22.12.2003 executed by revoking the earlier Gift Settlement Deed dt. 29.03.1997 on baseless ground. Again the donor Kotagiri Venkateswara Rao filed a suit in O.S.No. 290 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tiruvuru for

¶5

¶6

permanent injunction in respect of subject property against the petitioner and another and said suit was decided on merits on 30.12.2008 and held that according to Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Gift Settlement Deed dt. 29.03.1997 in favour of petitioner cannot be revoked. The donor and his wife expired. The son of the donor and his wife predeceased them. Thus, the petitioner became the lawful owner of the subject property covered by a Registered Gift Settlement Deed dt. 29.03.1997.

¶7

The petitioner issued legal notice dated 28.02.2020 to the Sub registrar, Vissannapeta, requesting to cancel the Revocation Deed dt. 22.12.2003 executed by Kotagiri Venkateswara Rao by considering the judgment in O.S.No. 290 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tiruvuru, but in vain. The petitioner submitted a representation/ objections to the Tahsildar on 08.03.2020 requesting to clear digital signature issue as the subject land digitally unsigned by the Tahsildar as indicated that there is some dispute with regard to the subject land, but in vain.

¶8

Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 8065 of 2020 for a direction to the respondents to restore digital signature of 4^th respondent therein in all web land record of rights and same is disposed of on 20.05.2020 with a direction to decide the application of the petitioner and as per order of this court, the Tahsildar, A. Konduru Mandal restored digital signature in web land record of rights.

¶9

The petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent for valuation certificate in respect of subject property for execution of sale deed. The 3^rd respondent refused to furnish the same on the ground that several disputes are pending between petitioner and his predecessors in title and no digital signature of Tahsildar in the

¶10

¶11

Web land records of rights. Assailing the arbitrary action of the respondents this Writ Petition is filed.

¶12

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner intends to sell away the property to the third parties and approached the 3^rd respondent for furnishing market value, stamp duty and registration, but the 3^rd respondent refused to furnish the same.

¶13

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record in the interest of justice, this Court felt it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition giving liberty to the petitioner to approach 3^rd respondent by way of an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information with regard to Market Value, Stamp Duty and Registration Charges in respect of the land which proposed to be sold and is there any objection for registration of the same within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such application filed by the petitioner before the 3^rd respondent, the 3^rd respondent is under statutory obligation to furnish the same within a period of two (02) weeks as per law. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶15

__________________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

Date: 18.11.2020

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.14754 OF 2020

¶21

Date: 18.11.2020

¶22

Balumuri Venkata Sobhana Chalapathi Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balumuri Venkata Sobhana Chalapathi Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bagolu Surendra Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B Viswanath Reddy Vs S Vidyasagar Reddy

T.K.Shanashekar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Murupudi Raghava Durga Prasada Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (now Apcpdcl)

Gadi Venkataramana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammad Fayyum, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh