Allowed

Smt. Kummari Nagalakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Jan 2021WP/1183/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a declaration that the registration authority's refusal to receive and register a sale document was illegal. The petitioner argued the property was not prohibited under Section 22-A. The Court directed the authority to receive and process the document without demanding a revenue No Objection Certificate but retained its power to refuse under Section 71

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to receive and process the document for registration without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from revenue authorities.

Smt. Kummari Nagalakshmi, Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO Writ Petition No.1183 of 2021

¶2

ORDER

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in refusing to receive and register the document sought to be presented by the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring 107.66 Square Yards bearing Plot No.32 (Municipal H.No.76/97-449-A2 vide Assessment No.1016062755) situated in Sy.No.317/3B of Nagendra Nagar, Ballary Road, Kurnool Town & City, Kurnool District, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 4^th respondent to receive, register and release the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the abovementioned property.

¶4

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

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that originally the land admeasuring Ac.2.67 ½ cents situated in New Sy.No.317/3 (Old Sy.No.317/3B) of Kallur Village, Kurnool Rural Mandal, belonged to one Jabbarmiaya and Gouse Miya, as per the registered document No.2707/1943, dated 01.11.1946. Thereafter, the land was approved for converting into plots vide D.Dis.No.109/70 of Executive officer, Kallur Gram Panchayat. After conversion of the said land into plots, one Guddi Marenna purchased Plot No.32 on 15.11.1971 vide document No.3171 of 1971. From her, Kothapeta Edanna purchased the said plot. Thereafter, after seeing the series of transactions from the year 1943, the petitioner’s father by name Kummari Tirupalu purchased the property under registered document No.4194 of 1982 dated 10.08.1982. Since the said date, the petitioner’s

¶6

family has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. After demise of the petitioner’s father, petitioner’s mother succeeded to the property. During her life time, she executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 24.04.2010 vide document No.3201 of 2010 in favour of the petitioner. Since the date of the gift deed, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The petitioner intended to sell the property and approached the 4^th respondent with a request to give market value particulars. The 4^th respondent refused to give the details stating that the land is shown in the prohibited property list furnished by the 3^rd respondent and is insisting NOC from the revenue authorities. Assailing the said action, the present writ petition is filed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4^th respondent is refusing to furnish the market value particulars and receive the document presented by the petitioner stating that the land is shown in the prohibited property list submitted by the 3^rd respondent and is insisting to produce NOC from the revenue authorities, which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act. The properties, which are notified under clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A of the Act alone are prohibited for registration. The subject property does not fall under any of the clauses under the provision of Section 22-A of the Act. Several registered transactions have been effected in respect of the subject property since the year 1943. Hence, the petitioner is now not under obligation to produce NOC from the revenue authorities. Further, whenever a document is presented for registration, the registration authorities are under obligation to receive the same and process the document for registration, as per the provisions of the Act. If there is any objection for

¶8

registration of the document, they shall return the document duly endorsing the reasons for non-registration of the document as per the provision of Section 71 of the Act. Therefore, if a direction is given to the 4^th respondent to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner, as envisaged under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.

¶9

Learned Assistant Government Pleader endorses the said submission.

¶10

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

¶11

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4^th respondent to receive and process the document submitted by the petitioner with regard to subject property, for registration, if it is otherwise in order as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, without insisting NOC from the revenue authorities. In the event he is not inclined to register the said document 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.

¶12

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

¶13

_________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶14

18.01.2021 Vjl

Smt. Kummari Nagalakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kummari Nagalakshmi, 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

Golla Ramakrishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S Chand Bee Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh