Allowed

G. Thippeswamy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2022WP/23641/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner sought a direction to register land documents. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to receive and process the documents under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from revenue officials.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to receive and process documents under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 without insisting on a No Objection Certificate.

G. Thippeswamy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.23641 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶5

“...to issue a Writ, One in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in insisting the petitioner to get No Objection Certificate from the revenue officials in respect of land admeasuring for an extent of Ac. 12.67 cents in Survey No.228 situated at Thimma Samudram Village, Kalyandurgam Mandalam, Anantapur District and not informing the stamp duty and registration charges payable to register the said land in favour of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to process the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid land for registration and release the same without insisting No Objection Certificate and pass...”

¶6

Though the petitioner made several allegations

¶7

against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, without going into the merits of

¶8

¶9

the case, to issue a direction to the 2^nd respondent to receive and register the document(s) presented by the petitioner.

¶10

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

¶11

“(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.

¶12

(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.”

¶13

In view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, the 2^nd respondent is directed to receive and process the document(s) submitted by the

¶14

¶15

petitioner as per the provisions of Section 71 of the Act, without insisting for no objection certificate, in case the instrument presented cannot be registered, the 2^nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders as required under Section 71 of the Act.

¶16

Accordingly, with the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶17

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶18

_______________ V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 02.12.2022

ASH

211

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.23641 of 2015

¶25

Date: 02.12.2022

¶26

ASH

G. Thippeswamy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Thippeswamy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

Gollakummari Markondaiah, S/o Peraiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kalvakuri Guramma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Raghunatha Naidu, Vs The State of A.P. rep.by its Prl. Secretary

V.Nanda Suresh, Kurnool Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Stamps,Hyd.,and 3 Otrs.

Evuri Chalapathi, Chittoor District and Another Vs Prl Secy, Revenue(Stamps and Regn) Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Boggarapu Naga Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its