Disposed

Smt. Rangoli Venkata Laxmi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Revenue

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Nov 2022WP/11000/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the learned Assistant Government Pleader readily agreed to receive the documents. The Court directed the Respondents to receive and process the documents as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, without examining the merits of the case, and disposed of the Writ Petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to receive and process the document(s) submitted by the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Smt. Rangoli Venkata Laxmi, Vs State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11000 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“...Issue any writ order or direction particulary one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to receive and register the document on its presentation by the Petitioner or her Vendors in respect of land measuring 155.5 Square Yards comprises of Patta No.42 in Sy. No.151/1C Sarada Nagar Layout, Plot No.34 situated at Vepagunta Village, Penduruthy Mandal, within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Gopalapatnam S.R.O. Limits, Visakhapatnam District by virtue of agreement of Sale Agreement dated 31.12.2014 and return the same on being registered and to pass such other order or orders….”

¶6

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, without touching merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to receive and register the document(s) presented by the petitioner.

¶7

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to receive and register the document(s) presented

¶8

by the petitioner, in accordance with Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). However, it is relevant to refer to Section 71 of the Act, which reads as follows:

¶9

“(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2, and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.

¶10

(2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered.”

¶11

In view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, the respondents are directed to receive and process the document(s) submitted by the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 71 of the Act. In case the instrument presented cannot be registered, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders as required under Section 71 of the Registration Act, as it is appealable under Section 72 of the Registration Act.

¶12

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶13

No costs.

¶14

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶15

shall also stand closed.

¶16

________________ V. SUJATHA, J

¶17

Date: 10.11.2022. ASH

¶18

207

¶19

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶20

W.P. No.11000 of 2015

¶21

Date:10.11.2022

¶22

ASH

Smt. Rangoli Venkata Laxmi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rangoli Venkata Laxmi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Revenue

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

Dasari Chalapathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gowni Ananda Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

Taanamgari Govindaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented its Principal

Vemulapalli Narayanamma at Vempalli Narayanamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Badduri Gayatri Devi, Guntur District and 2 Others Vs Prl Secy, Dept. of Revenue(Stamps and Regn), Hyderabad and 10 Ot

Mr. Emmadisetty v. Surendra Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by Principal