Disposed

D Nizam Ali Khan v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Dec 2022WP/41383/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal to register a sale deed, paying stamp duty and fees, alleging illegality. Court directed online application to second respondent with relevant decree and prior writ orders, dismissing petition procedurally.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file online application within two weeks; second respondent to consider it within eight weeks.

D Nizam Ali Khan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.41383 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the endorsement No.191 of the 3^rd respondent in refusing to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner dated 15.11.2022 in favour of Patan Japheya Sultana, wife of Pondaluru Chand Basha for registration in spite of having collected an amount of Rs.51,350 towards stamp duty, Rs.7,950/- towards registration fee and Rs 200/- towards user charges as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the 3^rd respondent, Joint Sub Registrar-1 to register the sale deed dated 15.11.2022.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶6

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already filed a suit No.14/2000 and the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently based on the decree, the original owner have sold away the property to the several persons and the petitioner is one among the purchasers. When the Registering authorities have taken objection, several writ petitions were filed which were disposed of directing the Registering

¶7

¶8

authorities, to furnish necessary information pertaining to the land proposed to be purchased by the petitioner and to entertain the documents, in case if happens to be the part of the land, which is mentioned in the schedule of a decree in O.S.No.14 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Now, the respondents refused to register the document presented by the petitioner on the ground that subject property is included under section 22-A of Registration Act,1908.

¶9

On a perusal of the orders passed by this Hon’ble court in various Writ Petitions pertaining to the subject property i.e., Writ Petition No 17923/2010, Writ Petition No.19845/ 2010, Writ Petition No.10808/2012 and Writ Petition No.33664/2010 liberty has been given to the petitioner to make on-line application to the second respondent within a period of two (2) weeks along with decree dated 11.07.2005 in O.S.No.14 of 2000.

¶10

Considering the submissions made, the petitioner is directed to file on-line application to the 2^nd Respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on filing such on-line application, the 2^nd Respondent is to consider the same keeping in view the orders of this Hon’ble Court in various Writ Petition No 17923/2010, Writ Petition No.19845/ 2010, Writ

¶11

¶12

Petition No.10808/2012 and Writ Petition No.33664/2010 and decree dated 11.07.2005 in O.S.No.14 of 2000 and pass appropriate orders as per the rules on the subject within a period of eight (8) weeks.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall

¶15

stand closed.

¶16

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶17

Date:22.12.2022 Issue CC in ten (10) days. (B/O) Psr/Kpv.

¶18

¶19

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.41383 of 2022

¶21

Dated 22.12.2022

¶22

Psr/Kpv

D Nizam Ali Khan v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Nizam Ali Khan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Posani at Paleti Siva Kumari, Vs State of Ap

Konudula Ramesh Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Pasavula Harshavardhan Vs the State of Ap

Singidi Raghuram Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Lalitesh Kumar Katragadda, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Chekka Appalakonda, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh