Allowed

M/s. Bijam Private Limited, 6-24-1, Opp. Visakha Museum v. The Sub Registrar, Madhurawada

Telangana HC4 Feb 2009WP/1253/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking declaration that refusal to register documents due to pendency of settlement appeals and Section 22-A of the Registration Act is illegal. Court allowed petition, set aside impugned orders, and directed registration subject to outcome of appeals.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; directions to first respondent to examine documents for admission to registration, clarifying pendency of appeals and Section 22-A are not hindrances.

M/s. Bijam Private Limited, 6-24-1, Opp. Visakha Museum… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1253 of 2009

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. Bijam Private Limited, 6-24-1, Opp. Visakha Museum Beach Road, Visakhapatnam, Rep,. by its Director D.V. Krishna Raju S/o. Suryanarayana Raju, aged 57 yrs

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Sub Registrar, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

¶10

2 The District Registrar Visakhapatnam.

¶11

3 State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

.....RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring as illegal, arbitrary the order of the 2nd Respondent in Appeal Nos. 2 to 6 of 2008 dt.20-12-2008 confirming the orders of the 1st Respondent dt. 27-7-2006 refusing to register the documents presented by the petitioner in respect of land in S.Nos. 346/2 to 346/7 and 346/9 situate at Yeguvatimmapuram Village, Madhurawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and issue a consequential direction to forthwith register the same.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE

¶16

The Court made the following :

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

Sri Palla Polinaidu of Yeguvatimmapuram Village of Madhurawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, laid a claim for grant of

¶19

ryotwari patta under the A.P. Abolition (AA) of Estates and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948, for an extent of Acs.32.00 of land in survey Nos.346/2 to 346/7 and 346/9 of that village. The Settlement Officer granted patta over an extent of Acs.19.65 cents, through an order, dated 17.08.2004. An appeal was presented by Palla Polinaidu before the Director of Settlements, feeling aggrieved by the denial of ryotwari patta for Acs.12.35 cents of land. The Government, on the other hand, preferred an appeal before the Director of Settlements, feeling aggrieved by the patta granted in respect of Acs.19.65 cents of land. Sri Palla Polinaidu transferred his rights in respect of the entire property in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner presented certain documents, in relation to the land in an extent of Acs.19.65 cents, for which patta was granted, for registration before the first respondent. Through an endorsement, dated 27.07.2006, the first respondent refused to admit the documents for registration, on the ground of pendency of the appeals before the Director of Settlements. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent. The appeal was rejected on 20.12.2008, on the ground that the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), operates against the lands. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pelader for Revenue.

¶22

It is not in dispute that the subject matter of the documents presented before the first respondent for registration is the land in an extent of Acs.19.65 cents, as regards which, ryotwari patta was already granted by the Settlement Officer. The mere fact that the appeals are pending before the Director of Settlements, hardly constitutes any basis for denial of registration. Secondly, while the ground assigned by the first respondent for refusing registration is mere pendency of appeals, the second respondent proceeded a step further and observed that the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Act operates. Both the grounds are untenable. It is to be noted that mere registration of documents does not take away the rights that flow out of operation of

¶23

statute. Further, registration of the document would be subject to the out come of the appeals that are pending before the Director of Settlements. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The first respondent is directed to examine the documents for admitting them to registration, in case the other requirements are complied with. It is made clear that mere pendency of the appeals before the Director of Settlements shall not be treated as a ground, nor the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Act shall operate visà-vis the lands. In case the documents are admitted to registration, the same shall be subject to out come of the appeals, pending before the Director of Settlements. It shall be open to the petitioner to represent the documents for registration.

¶24

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.04.02.2009. Note: Furnish C.C. in two days. (B/o) GJ

M/s. Bijam Private Limited, 6-24-1, Opp. Visakha Museum v. The Sub Registrar, Madhurawada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Bijam Private Limited, 6-24-1, Opp. Visakha Museum v. The Sub Registrar, Madhurawada

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

Mrs.Kiran Naidu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Ahmedi Begum Vs The Tahsildar

The Marine Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Karra Ravinder Reddy Vs The Tahsildar

Chinde Veeraiah, Vs The District Collector

Mohd. Qamuruddin Khan, Vs The Joint Sub-Registrar-I