Allowed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2022WP/30700/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the respondent's refusal to register a sale deed without an NOC. Directed the Sub-Registrar to receive and process documents under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the third party, passing appropriate refusal orders only if legal grounds exist.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 5th Respondent to receive and process documents without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the 3rd Respondent, ordering appropriate refusal orders under Section 71 if registrati

Evuri Chalapathi, Chittoor District and Another… — Specific Performance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.30700 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

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

¶5

“...to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5^th respondent in insisting No Objection Certificate from the 3^rd respondent to register the sale deed in respect of the petitioners plots bearing Nos’.20 and 21 in Sy.No.511-1B2 situated in II Ward in Bandameedakammapalle Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal and arbitrary and against to law and consequently direct the 5^th respondent to Receive, register and release the sale deed in respect of the plots bearing Nos.20 and 21 in Sy.No.511-1B2 situated in II Ward in Bandameedakammapalle Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District...”

¶6

Though the petitioners made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court, without going into the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the 5^th respondent to receive and register the document(s) presented by the petitioners.

¶7

¶8

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue readily

¶9

agreed to receive and register the document(s) presented by the petitioners, 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:

¶10

“(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.

¶11

(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.”

¶12

In view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, the 5^th respondent is directed to receive and process the document(s) submitted by the petitioners as per the provisions of Section 71 of the Act, without insisting for No Objection Certificate. In case the

¶13

¶14

instrument presented cannot be registered, the 5^th respondent shall pass appropriate orders as required under Section 71 of the Act.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

_______________ V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 02.12.2022

ASH

218

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.30700 of 2015

¶24

Date: 02.12.2022

¶25

ASH

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

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