Allowed

Golla Ramakrishna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Jan 2021WP/1082/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition directing the sub-registrar to receive and process a sale deed for registered land. The court held that prior civil court decrees negating Wakf Board claims preclude them from opposing registration via unregistered letters, mandating the authority to register without reference to such correspondence unless other statutory objections exist.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of; direction issued to the 4th respondent to receive and process the sale deed for registration without reference to objection letters from respondents 2 & 5.

Golla Ramakrishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.1082 of 2021

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 4^th respondent in receiving and processing the document sought to be presented by the petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Sy.No.371 of Kallur Village & Mandal, Kurnool District, by entertaining the letters addressed by the respondents 2 & 5 even though they have no semblance of right as 5^th respondent Wakf board lost its right in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 20.01.1971 in OS.No.68 of 1966 on the file of Additional SubJudge’s Court, Kurnool and orders of the High Court in WP.No.24579 of 2012 dated 14.08.2012, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4^th respondent to receive and register the documents sought to be presented by the petitioner with respect to above property.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that originally, one N. Subba Rao is the absolute owner of the subject property, having purchased the same from Syed Valli Peer, the legal heir of the original owners whose names were mentioned in the Revenue Settlement Register, under a registered document No.141/1986 dated 01.06.1986. After the death of Subba Rao, on 25.04.1995, N. Rammohan Rao, who is

¶7

¶8

MGR,J WP_1082_2021

¶9

the sole legal heir of Subba Rao, succeeded to the property. The title of the property is also traceable from the judgment and decree dated 20.01.1971 in OS.No.68 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sub-Judge, Kurnool. The petitioner became the absolute owner of the land to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Sy.No.371 of Kallur village & Mandal, Kurnool District, having got the same under a registered Will executed by one N. Rammohan Rao vide document No.52 of 2015 dated 25.04.2015 wherein the subject property is mentioned at item No.15. The said Rammohan Rao died on 18.01.2018. Subsequently, the Will came into operation. The petitioner intended to sell the property and approached the 4^th respondent to ascertain the market value of the land. The 4^th respondent informed that land situated in Sy.No.371 could not be registered as respondents 2 & 5 have addressed letters not to register the land. The action of the 4^th respondent in refusing to receive and process the document sought to be presented by the petitioner, at the instance of respondents 2 & 5, is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, questioning the arbitrary action of the 4^th respondent, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that O.S.No.68 of 1966 was filed by the 5^th respondent herein, against the owners/successors of the persons mentioned in the RSR, for possession of the entire extent of Ac.13.00 cents situated in Sy.No.371 of Kallur Village, Kurnool District. The said suit was dismissed, on merits, on 20.01.1971. The decree and judgment have become final. Subsequently, when the registration authorities refused to register a sale deed presented in respect of land situated in Sy.No.371/3B of Kallur Village & Mandal, Kurnool District, basing

¶11

¶12

MGR,J WP_1082_2021

¶13

on the letter addressed by the District Collector dated 17.01.2012, wherein the District Collector informed that the land in question is not transferable as it belongs to Wakf Board, W.P.No.24579 of 2012 was filed. The said writ petition was allowed by orders, dated 14.08.2012, quashing the proceedings issued in letter No.S.R.O,Kallur/61/2012 dated 10.04.2012 and directing the 1^st respondent therein to accept the sale document in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents covered by Sy.No.371/3B of Kallur Village and Mandal in Kurnool District, without treating the said land as Wakf land and without reference to the letter dated 17.01.2012 addressed by the District Collector, Kurnool. In the said order, it was inter alia observed that merely because the lands are included in the prohibited property list by the District Collector, it will not outweigh the adjudication made by the competent civil Court with regard to the very same land in OS.No.68 of 1966 and that when the claim of the Wakf Board is negatived in the suit, it is not open to the registering authority to refuse registration on the ground that the said land is shown in the letter dated 17.01.2012 addressed by the District Collector prohibiting the registration. Inspite of the decree and judgment dated 20.01.1971 in OS.No.68 of 1966 on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge’s Court, Kurnool, which have become final, and in view of the orders dated 14.08.2012 of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP.No.24579 of 2012, the action of the 4^th respondent in refusing to receive the document sought to be presented by the petitioner for registration in respect of land to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Sy.No.371 of Kallur Village & Mandal, Kurnool District, referring to the letters addressed by respondents 2 & 5, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court and

¶14

¶15

MGR,J WP_1082_2021

¶16

orders of this Court. The 4^th respondent is under statutory obligation to receive the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject land and process the document for registration, as per the provisions of the Registration Act and if there is any objection for registration of the document, the 4^th respondent shall return the document duly endorsing the reasons for non-registration of the document as per the provision of Section 71 of the Act but the 4^th respondent is not justified in refusing to receive the document sought to be produced by the petitioner. Therefore, if a direction is given to the 4^th respondent to receive and process the sale deed presented by the petitioner, as envisaged under the provisions of the Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.

¶17

Learned Assistant Government Pleader endorses the said submissions.

¶18

In the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record, this Court, in the interests of justice, felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition.

¶19

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4^th respondent to receive and process the sale deeds proposed to be submitted by the petitioner in respect of land to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Sy.No.371 of Kallur Village & Mandal, Kurnool District, for registration, if it is otherwise in order as per the provisions of the Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder, without reference to the letters addressed by the respondents 2 & 5. In the event he is not inclined

¶20

¶21

MGR,J WP_1082_2021

¶22

to register the said document on any other grounds and intends to refuse to register the said document, he shall pass appropriate orders as per the provision of Section 71 of the Act giving reasons for not registering the document and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

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

¶24

_________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶25

18.01.2021 Vjl

Golla Ramakrishna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golla Ramakrishna, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Sai Krishna Vs the State of Ap

Kadagala Anand Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Maddi Rambabu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G Venugopal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Kummari Nagalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S Chand Bee Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh