Disposed

Mohammad Fayyum, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Nov 2020WP/17600/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the refusal of the 3rd respondent to register a sale deed due to the absence of a No Objection Certificate from the 4th respondent. Following a precedent, the Court directed the Sub-Registrar to process and register the deed unless specific prohibitions under the Registration Act apply. The rejection of the sale deed without such statutory prohibiti

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent directed to receive, process, and register the sale deed within two weeks if no prohibition under Section 22-A exists; any refusal must be reasoned under Section 71.

Mohammad Fayyum, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO WRIT PETITION No.17600 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not entertaining any deed of conveyance presented by petitioner in respect of land an extent of Ac. 2.05 cents situated in Sy.No. 60/4 of Kurmannapalem Village, Khata No. 49 in Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District submitted for registration and insisting No Objection Certificate from the 4^th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to receive, process and register any deed of conveyance being presented by petitioner in respect of the subject property without insisting upon No Objection Certificate from the 4^th respondent.

¶4

The Case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the land an extent of Ac. 2.05 cents situated in Sy.No. 60/4 of Kurmannapalem Village, Khata No. 49 in Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, having inherited the same from their ancestors about 80 years ago. The 4^th Respondent issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in favour of petitioner and his name is duly mutated in all revenue records. The petitioner with an intention to alienate the subject property in favour of third party by way of Registered Sale Deed and presented the same before the 3^rd respondent on 15.03.2020 for registration. The 3^rd respondent has refused to receive the said Sale Deed stating that the subject property is assigned property and the same is recorded in the Prohibited Property List maintained under Sec. 22-A of

¶5

¶6

Registration Act, 1908 and insisted the petitioner to get No Objection Certificate from the 4^th respondent. The petitioner approached the 4^th respondent and requested to issue No Objection Certificate, who refused to issue the same as they are not competent to issue the same. Hence this Writ Petition is filed.

¶7

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 by presenting the sale deed for registration, but the 3^rd respondent refused to receive and register the same and insisting to get No Objection Certificate from the 4^th Respondent, which is illegal and arbitrary.

¶8

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the 3^rd respondent is under statutory obligation under the Registration Act to receive, register and release the sale deeds, he cannot refuse to register the document of conveyance, if it is otherwise in accordance with registration rules, unless the property is prohibited for registration as per the provisions of Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The action of the 3^rd respondent in refusing to receive the document for registration is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act and law declared in this Court in the case of Raavi Satish Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary & Others in W.P.No.30526 of 2012 and batch on 31.12.2012.

¶9

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner and on perusal of the record in the interest of justice this Court felt it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, following the Judgment passed in Raavi Satish’s case referred supra, directing the 3^rd respondent to receive the sale deed for registration, process the same as per the

¶10

¶11

Registration Rules, if it is in accordance with the Rules, register and release, if there is no prohibition for registration in accordance with the provisions of Section 22-A of the Registration Act. If the 3^rd respondent is not inclined to register the sale deed, he has to give reasoned endorsement of refusal as per the provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act to the petitioner, the said exercise shall be completed, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶12

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

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

¶14

__________________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶15

Date: 18.11.2020 KK

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.17600 OF 2020

¶19

Date: 18.11.2020

¶20

Mohammad Fayyum, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Fayyum, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

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

Balumuri Venkata Sobhana Chalapathi Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh