Allowed

Vaddi Annapurna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Oct 2022WP/33206/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed a writ petition filed against a Sub-Registrar's refusal order. The Court held that the registration refusal, based on stay orders in a specific civil revision petition where the petitioner was not a party, was unsustainable. The refusal order was set aside and registration was directed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned refusal order dated 22.09.2022 is set aside and the Respondent is directed to complete the registration process for P.No.77 of 2022.

Vaddi Annapurna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.33206 of 2022

¶4

Between:-

¶5

Vaddi Annapurna .... Petitioner

¶6

And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and Others. ..... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Ch.Srinivas

¶7

Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Stamps & Registration

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the SubRegistrar, Pullampet, YSR Kadapa District, in issuing the refusal order dated 22.09.2022, inter alia, on the ground that the property sought to be registered (P.No.77/2022) is covered by stay orders in C.R.P.M.P.No.1546 of 2012 in C.R.P.No.1147 of 2012.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the various contentions raised in the Writ Petition states that the matter is covered by a decision in W.P.No.10628 of 2013 dated 09.04.2013 and places reliance on the same. The learned Judge, after referring to the facts, disposed of the said Writ Petition, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

¶11

¶12

“2. A copy of the interim order passed by this Court on 12.03.2012 in C.R.P.No.1147 of 2012 is placed on record. Thereby, this Court injuncted respondents 2,3 and 21 therein and their men, agents etc., from alienating or creating any third party interests in the petitioner ‘E’ schedule properties in O.P.No.34 of 2004 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The order explicitly makes it clear that the injunction granted therein was against the named respondents and the persons claiming through them.

¶13

Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the C.R.P., and he is not claiming through any of the respondents named therein, including respondents 2,3 and 21 who were specifically injuncted by this Court from alienating the ‘E’ schedule properties in O.P.No.34 of 2004. This being the situation, it would not be open to the SubRegistrar, Pullampet, to rely upon the interim order passed in C.R.P.No.1147 of 2012 as a ground for refusing registration of the document presented by the petitioner. The mere pendency of C.R.P.No.1147 of 2012 and the interim injunction granted therein against some third parties would have no bearing upon the document presented by the petitioner. The impugned refusal order dated 25.08.2012 is therefore unsustainable on facts and in law and is accordingly set aside. There shall accordingly be a consequential direction to the Sub-Registrar, Pullampet, to complete the registration process in respect of the document kept pending registration as P.No.47 of 2012 and release the same after due registration in the event it is found to otherwise fulfil the requirements of law.”

¶14

¶15

The specific case of the petitioner in the present Writ

¶16

Petition is also that she is neither a party to the above referred C.R.P., nor her property in question is involved in the C.R.P., and that the parties to the said C.R.P., have no claim against the petitioner or her property. In view of the specific assertions made by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition in terms of the Order in W.P.No.10628 of 2013.

¶17

Accordingly, the impugned refusal order dated 22.09.2022 is set aside and the 3^rd respondent is directed to complete the registration process in respect of the document kept pending registration as P.No.77 of 2022 and release the same after due registration, in the event it is found in compliance with the requirements of Law.

¶18

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No

¶19

costs.

¶20

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

¶21

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶22

Date: 19.10.2022 Note: Furnish C.C. in 1 week. B/o. BLV

¶23

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶25

W.P.No.33206 of 2022

¶26

Date: 19.10.2022

¶27

Note: Furnish C.C. in 1 week. B/o. BLV

Vaddi Annapurna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaddi Annapurna 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalluri Siddaiah Vs D.v.Ramana

Mareedu Vishnu Narayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dheeraj Dama Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Prapalsha Agros Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Boddu Lalithamma Vs the State of Ap

B.Nagaraja Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh