Allowed

S.Suresh,the Proprietor, M/S Sri Subramanyam Auto Electrical Works v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Oct 2020WP/19894/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking registration of a sale deed for a plot previously refused by the Stamping and Registration Department. Relying on prior orders regarding the same land, the Court held respondents cannot prevent the transaction though allotment clauses remain enforceable.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; respondents directed to register documents; no order as to costs.

S.Suresh,the Proprietor, M/S Sri Subramanyam… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.19894 of 2020

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking verbatim the following relief/s:

¶6

“.. to issue Writ or Order one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not receiving and registering the document presented for registration by the petitioner pertaining to the Plot No.130 in S.No.74/7 (part of Akkarampalle Village Accounts, Auto Nagar, Renigunta Road, Tirupati as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, violative Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the judgments in W.P.No.14439 of 2011 and W.P.No.125 of 2019 on the file of this Hon’ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to receive and register the document presented for registration by the petitioner pertaining to the said land and handover after registering the same to the petitioner…”

¶7

Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for 3^rd respondent.

¶8

Perused the material available on record. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the subject property under regular registered sale deed, dated 29.12.2009, executed by APIIC limited, Tirupati. Due to slump in industrial works particularly auto works in and around the locality, the petitioner

¶9

¶10

intended to sell the subject property to third parties. However, the 3^rd respondent refused to receive and register the documents presented in respect of the subject property by the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶11

At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in Sy.No.74/7 of Akkaramapalli Village near Tirupati admeasuring Ac.75.00 cents is a Government land and that out of it Ac.37.05 cents of land in Sy.No.74/1 to 6 is a tank poramboke and that an extent of Ac.26.00 cents of land in Sy.No.74/7 was handed over to Tirupati Urban Devlopment Authority (TUDA) for establishment of Autonagar and that in view of the said allotment of Government land to TUDA, the land is no longer a Government land and it does not continue to possess the same character which it earlier possessed in view of the allotment to the TUDA and, that, therefore, the 3^rd respondent cannot refuse to register the documents presented in respect of the subject property by the petitioner.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner, having placed reliance on a writ order, dated 19.01.2012, in W.P.No.14439 of 2011 of the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh and another writ order, dated 06.03.2019, in W.P.No.125 of 2019 of a learned single Judge of this Court wherein the earlier orders were followed, contended that similar contentions of the respondents urged in the said writ petitions were negatived by the said Court and that further directions were given to the respondents concerned to register the

¶13

¶14

documents. Copies of the said writ orders in the said writ petitions are placed on record. He points out that the subject matter of the said writ petitions is the very same land in Sy.No.74/7 of Akkarampalle village.

¶15

Having regard to the facts and submissions and for the reasons alike as were mentioned in the afore-said orders in W.P.No.14439 of 2011 and in W.P.No.125 of 2019, this Writ Petition is allowed inter alia holding that the respondents shall not have any right to prevent any transaction by the petitioner vis-àvis the subject plot purchased by him from the APIIC, Tirupati. However, the said authority shall be entitled to enforce the clauses with regard to allotment vis-à-vis of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶18

Date: 22.10.2020 SPR

¶19

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.19894 of 2020

¶22

Date: 22.10.2020

¶23

SPR

S.Suresh,the Proprietor, M/S Sri Subramanyam Auto Electrical Works v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Suresh,the Proprietor, M/S Sri Subramanyam Auto Electrical Works v. The 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Sudheer, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Somisetti Jagadeeswar Suresh Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Boya Madhava Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lachi Naga Vennela, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Uppari Subbarayudu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kadmi Mani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh