Allowed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Nov 2022WP/17442/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged the Tahsildar's inclusion of land in the prohibited properties list under the Registration Act. The Court held that only the District Collector is competent to furnish such a list, setting aside the Tahsildar's impugned communication and directing the Sub-Registrar to register the petitioner's document.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; Tahsildar's communication set aside; petitioner directed to be heard and document registered under Section 71 of the Registration Act.

Dodda Seetamma, W/o. Dodda Ramalinga Reddy Vs The… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.17442 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

“to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in including an extent of 283 8/9 Square yards of land in Survey Nos.414 and 415 of Pedapalakaluru Village, in the list of lands held by Sri Sarveswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Pedapalakaluru Village, Guntur District, basing on the entries in the Resurvey and Resettlement Register as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and set aside the communication in R.C.No.1833/2010D dt 30.08.2010 sent by the Tahsildar, Guntur District to the Sub-Registrar, Nallapadu, Guntur District, so far as the above and extent and said Survey Nos.414 and 415 ….”

¶6

The main contention of petitioners before this Court is that Tahsildar is incompetent to furnish list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Act and the District Collector alone is competent to include any property or exclude any property from prohibitory list, published under Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Act. The Registration Department issued Memo G1/19331/2005 dated 14.04.2007, 2^nd para of memo is relevant for the purpose of deciding the real controversy, which reads as follows:

¶7

„District Collector shall furnish the list of immovable properties owned by the State to the Registering Officer, having jurisdiction over such property and also to the District Registrar, Director of Inspector General concerned and Commissioner of Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in proforma Appendix-II and the list must be signed by the concerned authorized representative of Central or State government as the case may be‟.

¶8

¶9

Therefore, the list under Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Act shall be furnished by the “District Collector” alone in terms of Circular Memo referred above.

¶10

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the communication sent by the 3^rd respondent/Tahsildar vide R.C.No.1833/2010D dated 30.08.2010 to the Sub-Registrar, Nallapadu, Guntur District, to the extent of subject lands and consequently 4^th respondent is directed to receive and register the document present by the petitioner, release the same, if it is otherwise in order as per Section 71 of Indian Registration Act. There shall be no costs.

¶11

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for

¶12

consideration, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶14

Date : 17.11.2022 AVTP

¶15

¶16

243

¶17

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.17442 of 2015

¶19

Date : 17.11.2022

¶20

AVTP

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dodda Seetamma, W/o. Dodda Ramalinga Reddy 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

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

Venkatarajesh Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Buddareddigari Harikrishna Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh