Allowed

V Lakshmi Narasamma v. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Feb 2020WP/4640/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Sub-Registrar of Tadipatri's refusal to register a sale deed for agricultural land due to the petitioner's failure to obtain a no objection certificate. The Court held the refusal illegal and arbitrary, directing the authority to process the document.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; action of 5th respondent declared illegal and arbitrary; directed to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner.

V Lakshmi Narasamma Vs The Sate of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Writ Petition No.4640 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of 5^th respondent herein/Sub-Registrar, Tadipatri, Ananthapur District, in refusing to receive and register the document in respect of land admeasuring in an extent of Ac.2.11 cents in Sy.No.265/B and Ac.1.86 cents in Sy.No.265/C on the ground that the petitioners have to obtain no objection certificate from 2^nd respondent, declare the same as illegal and arbitrary, consequently direct 5^th respondent, to receive and process the document.

¶5

Originally land in an extent of Ac.2.11 cents in Sy.No.265/B situated at Dadithota village, Tadimarri Mandal, Anantapur District was inherited by the father of 1^st petitioner from his father who was absolute owner of the land having inherited the same through partition deed vide document No.1576/1957 dated 05.07.1957, 1^st petitioner owns an extent of Ac.1.86 cents in Sy.No.265/C situated at Dadithota village, Tadimarri Mandal, Anantapur District having inherited the same under registered gift deed dated 11.10.2006, bearing document No.4748/2006. 1^st petitioner with an intention to sell away his land, on 31.01.2020 approached 5^th respondent, but it is informed that 5^th respondent cannot register the sale deed without furnishing no objection certificate issued by concerned revenue aurhotities. Therefore, the action of 5^th respondent is questioned in refusing to receive the document for registration, requested to issue direction, to register the document and release the same.

¶6

¶7

Though the petitioner raised several other contentions, they are not relevant, but the basis for refusing to receive the document for registration is to obtain no objection certificate from concerned revenue authorities, requested to pass appropriate order.

¶8

It is an undisputed fact that petitioner succeeded the property from his ancestors. When the petitioner presented sale deed for registration, executed in favour of 3^rd party conveying subject land before 5^th respondent, it was refused, only for the reason that to obtain no objection certificate from concerned authorities.

¶9

The main contention of petitioner before this Court is that when document is presented for registration, the Registering Authority shall invariably receive it, if the property covered by the document is included in prohibitory list under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908, the document shall be returned to the person, who presented it, with a written communication.

¶10

Here, 5^th respondent refused to receive and register the document, on the ground that the petitioner failed to obtain no objection certificate, the act of 5^th respondent is without any competency. When 5^th respondent exercised power beyond the power conferred on him, refusing to receive and register the document is illegal. Therefore, such act is highly reprehensible.

¶11

In the present case, the Sub Registrar refused to receive the document for registration, on the ground of failure to obtain no

¶12

¶13

objection certificate from concerned authorities cannot be construed as legal impediment on receiving and registration of the document. Therefore, the action of 5^th respondent, in refusing to receive the document presented for registration, is nothing but arbitrary exercise of power, consequently the action of 5^th respondent is declared as illegal and arbitrary.

¶14

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of 5^th respondent as illegal and arbitrary, consequently 5^th respondent is directed to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner, in accordance with law, if it is otherwise in order. There shall be no costs.

¶15

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

Dated 27.02.2020 Rvk

V Lakshmi Narasamma v. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Lakshmi Narasamma v. The Sate 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manam Venkata Pranav Gopal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Manam Venkata Pranav Gopal Vs the State of Ap

Anangi Prasad Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gongati Syamsundara Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kaligineti Sudha Vs the State of Ap

Harijan Ranga Swamy Vs the State of Ap