Dismissed

Paladugu Bharath, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Dec 2022WP/31872/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the registration of a sale deed for a vacant site in Visakhapatnam. The petitioner challenged the refusal of the 3rd respondent to register the document. The court directed the petitioner to present the deed, and if no other impediment exists in light of a specific Full Bench judgment, the Sub-Registrar must register it.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to present the deed, and the Sub-Registrar was directed to receive and process it, considering relevant Court orders, to register if no other impediment exists.

Paladugu Bharath, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.31872 of 2016

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

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

¶5

“….. to declare the action of the 3^rd respondent in not receiving and registering the sale deed in favour of the petitioner for the vacant site covered by plot No.76 in Sy. No. 63/P admeasuring to an extent of 150 Sq. Yards of Butchirajuapalem village, Visakhapatnam city as illegal and arbitrary. ….”

¶6

2. When the matter has come up for admission on

¶7

04.01.2017, following interim order was granted:-

¶8

“... Meanwhile, the petitioner shall present the document pertaining to land admeasuring 150 Sq. Yards, plot No. 76 in Sy. No. 63/P of BUchirajupalem village, Visakhapatnam City, in which event the 3^rd respondent shall deal with the same by taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 30569 of 2014 and also Full Bench Judgment of this court in Vijamuri Rajagopala chary v. State of A.P., and others ’. If he intends not to register the same, he shall record reasons and communicate the same to the petitioner.”

¶9

3. Earlier the Hon’ble High Court in similar circumstances

¶10

has passed the following interim order on 06.11.2014 in

¶11

WPMP. No. 38221 of 2014 in W.P. No. 30569 of 2014 :-

VS, J

W.P.No.31872 of 2016

“Learned counsel for the petitioner traced history of alienation of the land in Sy.No. 63/P. He placed reliance on the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam in R.P. No. 193/66. The Settlement Officer declared schedule land as part of T.D. No. 2924. As a consequence, the relevant entries were corrected in 1-B Register. The earlier entry is describing the property as “Cheruvu” was deleted. As evident from the order dated 16.06.1966, the contention of the revision petitioner was accepted to treat R.S.No. 63 as part of T.D. No.2924. As seen from the report of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation & CAD, Department, Visakhaptnam District, dated 02.03.2013, that there are residential buildings and plots and there are no traces of any tank or ayacut in Survey No. 63.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the material available on record, it cannot be said that the land in survey No. 63 is a Cheruvu and therefore, no alienation of land can be made. In fact, several transactions have taken place. The vendor of the petitioner purchased the plot as early as in the year 1982 and at that point of time also no objection was raised.

¶17

Even though the matter was adjourned at the request of the learned Government Pleader for obtaining instructions, she expressed her inability to obtain instructrions.

¶18

IF the facts presented by the petitioner are true, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to receive and process the deed of conveyance at threshold. The Sub-Registrar, Gopalapuram is therefore directed to receive and process the deed of conveyance concerning to plot No.113 to an extent of 250 Sq yards in survey No. 63/P of Butchirajuapalem village, Visakhapatnam city as and when presented before

VS, J

W.P.No.31872 of 2016

him. If he has no other impediment in registering the document and the proceedings dated 16.06.1966 and the report issued by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation & CAD Department, Visakhapatnam Division, in letter No. 3 revenue DB/D1/File No. Nil dated 02.03.2013 and still in force, he shall register and release the document. Any such registration shall abide the result of the writ petition.”

¶23

The respondents have filed the counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition.

¶24

Heard and perused the material placed on record.

¶25

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and on a perusal of the on 06.11.2014 in WPMP. No. 38221 of 2014 in W.P. No. 30569 of 2014, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to present the document pertaining to land admeasuring 150 Sq. Yards, plot No. 76 in Sy.No.63/P of Buchirajupalem village, Visakhapatnam City, in which event the 3^rd respondent shall deal with the same by taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 30569 of 2014 and also Full Bench Judgment of Vijamuri Rajagopala chary v. State of A.P., and others ’. There shall be no order as to costs.

VS, J

W.P.No.31872 of 2016

7 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶30

__________________ JUSICE V. SUJATHA

Date: 14.12.2022

PSR

VS, J

W.P.No.31872 of 2016

162

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶38

(Disposed of)

¶39

Writ Petition No.31872 of 2016

¶40

14.12.2022

¶41

PSR

Paladugu Bharath, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paladugu Bharath, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Managing Committee Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,and 8

D.Venkataparatnam Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept.,Hyd., and 3 Others

Kopanathi Venkata Rama Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal

Shaik Sameer Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Smt. Azimunnisa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.v.Ramana Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep.by its Principal Secretary