Disposed

Majjari Gangadhar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Aug 2021WP/15924/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the quasi-judicial authority to receive and register an appeal filed by the petitioner regarding land registration. The appeal was dismissed previously due to delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, despite Supreme Court and High Court orders extending limitation periods.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to receive appeal filed under Section 72 of Registration Act, 1908, and dispose of it in accordance with law.

Majjari Gangadhar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.15924 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶5

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No.3 being the quasi judicial authority in rejecting the appeal presented by the petitioner vide Memo No. G1/ 1286/2021 dated 23.07.2021 as the appeal is not presented within the stipulated time of limitation as per Section 72 of The Registration Act, 1908 in view of the pandemic situation of COVID-19 and also the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and also this Hon’ble Court about the limitation is concerned as nothing but illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to register the document pending vide P.670/2020 on the challans paid by the petitioner on 17.09.2020 and 30.09.2020 and pass such other orders....”

¶6

The petitioner intended to purchase an extent of Ac.1.44 cents, situated in Sy.No. 380/2; an extent of Ac. 0.11 ½ cents situated in Sy.No. 367/2 of Guduru Village, Kadapa Rural Mandal, Kadapa District from his vendor by name Chenna Chandranatham S/o Viswanatham. The 4^th respondent issued proceedings vide Order No.65/2020, dated 13.10.2020 and returned the document on the ground that his vendor has no alienable right and the petitioner did not accrue any right.

¶7

The petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent on 17.07.2021, filed an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, in the month of March-2021, but there is delay in filing the appeal due to Covid-19 pandemic. On the ground of delay in filing the Appeal the 3^rd respondent has not been entertained the same. Despite, the orders

¶8

¶9

passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 and this court in taken up Writ Petition No. 9254 of 2021, dated 15.07.2021 also passed similar order extending limitation in all the cases.

¶10

In view of extension of limitation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the 3^rd respondent has to receive, register and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, but the 3^rd respondent refused to receive the appeal of the petitioner, therefore inaction is questioned.

¶11

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

¶12

Undisputedly, due to Covid-19 pandemic this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India extended limitation for filing of all cases and even the orders are in force till the date of filing of the appeal atleast before the 3^rd respondent. But the 3^rd respondent refused to receive and register the appeal, contrary to the directions issued by this court and also Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

¶13

Therefore, the 3^rd respondent is directed to receive the Appeal presented by the petitioner under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 against the order passed by the 4^th respondent dated 13.10.2020 and register the same, if it is, otherwise in order and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

¶14

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of , at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the counsel. No costs.

¶15

¶16

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶17

also stand closed.

¶18

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 05.08.2021

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO.15924 OF 2021

¶24

Date: 05.08.2021

¶25

Majjari Gangadhar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majjari Gangadhar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Syed Khaderpeer, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bellamkonda Surya Venkata Satyavathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sk. Madeena, Vs The State of A.P.

Veluru Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nalavayi Muni Rami Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

MenniRatnaji Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh