Disposed

B.Murali, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Dec 2022WP/40456/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge directed the Joint Sub-Registrar, Kollur, to receive and process a document for registration under the interim order passed on 14.12.2015. The petition was disposed of after directing the registry to act as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, without costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the Joint Sub-Registrar to receive and process the document submitted by the petitioner as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.

B.Murali, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.40456 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

“….issue any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in refusing to receive and register the document in respect of the Plot bearing No.6, admeasuring 242 sq.yards in Sy.No. 709/1 (SubDivision No. 709/1A) situated at Kallur Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District without assigning any reason as illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction….”

¶6

On 14.12.2015, this court, while admitting the writ

¶7

petition, passed an interim order as follows:

¶8

“There shall be an interim direction directing the Joint Sub-Registrar, Kollur, Second respondent, to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner for registration in respect of the subject land without reference to the fact that the said land was allotted to the petitioner by way of assignment, albeit, upon payment of market value. In the event of the said document is found otherwise fulfill the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Joint Sub-Registrar, shall register the

¶9

¶10

document and release the same in accordance with the due procedure. Any such registration shall allied by the result of the Writ Petition.”

¶11

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:

¶12

“(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 subdistrict, 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.

¶13

(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.”

¶14

In view of the interim order passed by this court and

¶15

considering the submission of the learned Government

¶16

¶17

Pleader for Revenue, this court deems it appropriate to direct the 2^nd respondent to receive and process the document(s) submitted by the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 71 of the Act. In case the instrument presented cannot be registered, the 2^nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders as required under Section 71 of the Act, as it is appealable under Section 72 of the Act.

¶18

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶19

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

¶20

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

Date : 08.12.2022

KGR

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.40456 of 2015

¶26

Date : 08.12.2022

¶27

KGR

B.Murali, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Murali, 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

Mallabatula Pulla Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by Its Principal

Yeturu Venkateswara Reddy S/o Dasaratharami Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Secretary

Sarukolla Yerikalamma, Kadapa Dist Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 3 Ot

B.Narayana Rao, Vs The State of Andha Paradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Kamalapuri Vishwarupaachari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary

Peddada Mangaraju, S/o.Late P.Venkata Ramana, Vs .The State of Andhra Pradesh