Allowed

M. Saibaba Goud v. The Sub-Registrar

Telangana HC17 Mar 2005WP/10237/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the Sub-Registrar to register sale deeds for plots at Chengicherla Village. The Court held that the registering authority must receive the documents and pass a reasoned order for refusal if registration is blocked. Communication between respondents does not vitiate the right to present documents until a formal refusal order is passed. The petition al

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; direction to the 1st respondent to receive sale deeds presented and act strictly in accordance with the Registration Act.

M. Saibaba Goud Vs The Sub-Registrar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10237 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 M. Saibaba Goud S/o. Narayana Swamy Chengicherla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶9

2 G. Yadaiah S/o. Rajaiah

¶10

Chengicherla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶11

3 B. Chandrakala W/o. Mallesh Chengicherla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶12

4 B. Swamy S/o. B. Narsimha

¶13

Chengicherla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶14

5 M. Narasimha S/o. M. Chandraiah

¶15

Chengicherla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶16

6 S.N. Raju S/o. Narayana Chengicherla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶17

7 A. Venkatesh S/o. A. Mallaiah

¶18

Chengicherla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶19

8 R. Brahmanna S/o. Late Narahari Chengicherla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶20

9 K. Ravi Goud S/o. K. Rajaiah Chengicherla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶21

10 K. Srisailam S/o. Swamy

¶22

Chengicherla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶23

11 Bingi Pentaiah S/o. B. Komarauiah Chengicherla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶24

12 Ms. D. Sneha D/o. Sekhar, R/o. Nacharam.

¶25

.... PETITIONERS

¶26

AND

¶27

1 The Sub-Registrar, Ghatkesar, R.R.District.

¶28

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶29

3 Bantu Malliah S/o.Bantu Chennaiah R/o. Chengicherala Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, Order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in refusing to register the documents presented by the Petitioners for their plots in Survey Nos. 34.35 and 36 of Chengicherla Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District on the premise that a letter No. B1/2080/2003 Dt. 28.2.2004 is being sent by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unauthorized and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.A.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶33

The Court made the following :

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

The grievance of the petitioners is that when they presented certain documents for registration, the first respondent, on the ground that he received a letter dated 28.02.2004 from the second respondent not to register sale deeds in respect of land in Sy.Nos.34, 35 and 36 of Chengicherla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is refusing those documents for registration.

¶36

2. In the counter filed by the first respondent on behalf of respondents, he denied the petitioners presenting any documents for registration, and has taken some other pleas which are not relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition.

¶37

3. As and when a document is presented for registration, the registering authority

¶38

has to receive the document and if it cannot register the document for any reason, he should pass a reasoned order for refusal of registration. Till such time as the

¶39

registering officer passes an order refusing registration, petitioners cannot be said to

¶40

be aggrieved by communication between respondents inter se.

¶41

4. Therefore, with a direction to the first respondent to receive any sale deeds if any

¶42

when presented for registration by the petitioners and act strictly in accordance with

¶43

the provisions of the Registration Act and the rules made thereunder, the writ petition

¶44

is disposed of. No costs.

¶45

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J

¶46

Dated: 17.03.2005

¶47

RAR

¶48

¶49

1 The Sub-Registrar, Ghatkesar, R.R.District.

¶50

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District. 3 2 CCs to G.P for Revenue, High Court Bldgs, Hyd. (OUT)

¶51

4 2 CD copies.

M. Saibaba Goud v. The Sub-Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Saibaba Goud v. The Sub-Registrar

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

Smt. C. Dhana Lakshmi Vs The Deputy Director

Lagadapati Venkatarao, Vs The Sub Registrar

Y. Vanaja Vs Andhra University rep. by its Registrar

Ahmad Mohiuddin S/o Ghouse Mohduddin Vs The Land Acquisition Officer, and Sub Collector

Duddu Prathyusha, Vs University of Engineering

Public Educational Trust, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh