Allowed

Buddareddigari Harikrishna Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Nov 2022WP/15316/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inaction of the Sub-Registrar in registering a Lok Adalat Award. The court held that a Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to entertain a document without first receiving it and issuing a speaking order of refusal under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, as failing to do so amounts to misconduct and abdication of duty.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, directing the petitioner to present the Lok Adalat Award before the respondents within one week for registration upon compliance with relevant Acts.

Buddareddigari Harikrishna Reddy, Vs State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.15316 of 2015

¶2

ORDER

¶3

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India, seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“….to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No 3 to complete the process of registration of the Award dated 07.08.2010 passed in Lok Adalath Case No.445/2010 by the Lok Adalath Kakinada, East Godavari District and return the same to the learned IV Addl District Judges Court, Kakinada, within a time bound programme declaring the inaction of the respondent No 3 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Registration Act and the Rules framed there under on the subject and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case…”

¶6

When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted written instructions of Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Registrar Office(OB), Kakinada, vide Lr.No.75/2022 dated 14.11.2022, stating that the subject lands in R.S.No.113/1, Ramanayyapeta Village, Kakinada, Kakinada Mandal, comes under Prohibited property under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908, as the subject land is Endowment Land.

¶7

¶8

On the other hand, the learned counsel for petitioner reiterated contentions in the petitioner and strenuously argue that whenever a document is presented before the authorities for registration, the primary duty of the registering authority is to receive the document, scrutinize the same and if the document is not an objectionable one, collect proper stamp duty and registration charges and then, effect registration. In contrast, if the document is an objectionable one i.e., if the document falls within the ambit of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the Registering Authority has to succinctly pass a speaking order to that effect and return the document. Referring to Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1988, learned counsel would submit that a duty is caste on the registering authority to make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such an order in Book No.2 and endorse the words ‘Registration Refused’ on the document and furnish a copy of the order passed by him to the concerned party. However, without there being any plausible reason, the 3^rd respondent has totally abdicated his avowed duty and thereby, caused any amount of hardship to the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader acknowledging the responsibility of the Sub Registrar in terms of Section 71 of Registration Act, requested the Court to pass suitable orders.

¶9

It is seen, of late, unfortunately similar types of complaints are coming from the parties in the form of writ petitions saying that concerned Sub Registrar has flatly refused to entertain the document,

¶10

¶11

leaving aside scrutinizing the same and writing a speaking order of refusal. This is a flagrant violation of the duty caste on a Sub Registrar.

¶12

Section 71 of Registration Act, 1908, reads thus:

¶13

“71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded:

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

Thus, law is clear to the effect that if a Sub Registrar proposes to refuse to register the document presented, he has to endorse the reasons for his refusal and enter the same in Book No.2 and endorse the words ‘Registration Refused’ and furnish a copy of his order to the concerned party. That being so, a Sub-Registrar can refuse to register the document, only after he entertains the document i.e., receives the document presented by a party. He cannot refuse to entertain the document altogether, which would amount to total abdication of the assigned duty and lead to misconduct. The Sub-Registrar does not

¶17

¶18

have any authority to rely upon the report of the Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶19

In these circumstances and having regard to the facts and law, this writ petition is allowed directing the petitioner to present the LokAdalat Award before the respondents within one week from the date of receipt of copy of order, in which case, the respondents shall receive and process the same and they have not refused the registration in terms of Section 71, then, register the Lok-Adalat Award of petitioner on his complying with the relevant provisions of Stamps Act and Registration Act. The Registry shall send a copy of this order to Inspector General of Stamps and Registration for circulation to all the Sub Registrars in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶20

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶21

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

Date : 17.11.2022

AVTP

168

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.15316 of 2015

¶28

Date : 17.11.2022

AVTP

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.101 of 2015

¶34

Date : 15.11.2022

¶35

¶36

AVTP

¶37

Buddareddigari Harikrishna Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buddareddigari Harikrishna Reddy, v. 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

B.Thimmaiah, Vs The Joint Collector

Salivahana Sangam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Parvez Saheb, Chittoor Dist Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 3 Ot

Dodda Seetamma, W/o. Dodda Ramalinga Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Venkatarajesh Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Sri Udaya Bhanu Associates Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal