Dismissed

Sri.a.P.C. Nageswar Rao v. State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,and 14

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Dec 2022WP/8521/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Sub-Registrar's refusal to entertain a complaint regarding unauthorized attempts to alienate property. The Court held that Rule 58 does not empower the Registrar to enquire into such allegations and noted the existence of alternative civil court remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of leaving open the petitioner's alternative remedy before a competent civil court.

Sri.a.P.C. Nageswar Rao Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.8521 of 2016

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

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

¶5

“...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in refusing to accept and act on the compliant of the Petitioner dated 21-12-2015 through his communication dated 01-01-2016 and the habitude action in not assigning any valid reasons, as also the action on the 3^rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the A.P. Rules and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent not to register the documents that would be presented by respondents 10 to 14 in favour of respondent No.15 or any other persons in connection with the schedule property belonging to Petitioner in R.S.Nos.118/3M, admeasuring 400 Sq. yards at Ibrahimpatnam Village, Krishna District and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed fit and

¶6

proper under the circumstances of the case...”

¶7

The main grievance of the petitioner is that, he purchased an extent of 400 Sq.yards bearing Plot No.64

¶8

¶9

situated at Gollapudi village from one Tumuleni Venkata Sai Siva Satya Phani Kumar under registered sale deed dated 17.05.2006 under Document No.1841/2006 for valuable consideration and since the date of purchase, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same. The vendor of the petitioner has also delivered possession over the said property on the date of registration itself.

¶10

Subsequently, the petitioner herein and several other persons filed writ petitions before this Court against the Proceedings in Rc.A.689/2012 dated 02.11.2012 issued by the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District wherein the plots of petitioner and others were kept in prohibition of Transfers list under A.P. Assigned Lands Act, 1977. While disposing the writ petitions, this Court ordered that the petitioner and others have make an appropriate application before the Government for deletion of their lands from the list of prohibited land.

¶11

While so, recently, the petitioner came to know that attempts are being made by the family members of his vendor to alienate the subject property to third parties without

¶12

¶13

having any right. In that regard, the petitioner has made an application dated 21.12.2015 to the 2^nd respondent not to entertain any sale transactions with respect to the subject property and refuse such sale registrations, but the same is refused by the 2^nd respondent. Challenging the same, the writ petition.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made a complaint before the 2^nd respondent that the family members of the original owners, who have no right and title over the subject property are making hectic efforts to alienate the subject property. If they are allowed to alienate, he will suffer great loss and hardship. Inspite of such complaint, there was no response from the 2^nd respondent/Sub-Registrar. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶16

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration submits that there is no such

¶17

¶18

authority conferred on the 2^nd respondent to enquire into the allegations made by the petitioner.

¶19

Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to extract Rule 58 of the Registration Act, which is read as under:

¶20

“It forms no part of a Registering Officer’s duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute the document; but he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated below:

¶21

(a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be;

¶22

(b) that the document is forged;

¶23

(c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has no right to appear in that capacity;

¶24

(d) that the executing party is not really dead as alleged by the party applying for registration; or

¶25

(e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic.”

¶26

A reading of the above provision, makes it clear that the authority of the Registrar to enquire into the allegations made by the applicant is only to the extent of the grounds as mandated in the above provision but not otherwise.

¶27

¶28

In the instant case, the allegations made in the complaint by the petitioner do not come under the circumstances to enquire into the matter as provided under Rule 58 of the Registration Act. If the petitioner is aggrieved as alleged in the complaint there is an alternative remedy of approaching the competent civil Court for his grievance.

¶29

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submission of both the counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach competent civil Court for redressing his grievance.

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

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

¶32

_______________ V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 16.12.2022

KGR/SSN

234

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶38

WRIT PETITION No.8521 of 2016

¶39

Date : 16.12.2022

¶40

KGR/SSN

Sri.a.P.C. Nageswar Rao v. State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,and 14

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.a.P.C. Nageswar Rao v. State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,and 14

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

Pathuri Subbaiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

R.Venkata Swamy, Chittoor Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 3 Ors.

A.Krishna Raju Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,and 3

Davvuluri Sreenivasulu, Vs The State of A.P.

A.Vijay Kumar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Yadavalli Koteswararao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh