Disposed

V.Govinda Rao v. Government of A.P.

Telangana HC13 Jul 2009WP/13858/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

disposed of a writ petition challenging the inaction and subsequent refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register a document. The Court held that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, as the registering officer lacks jurisdiction to reconsider the decision without appellate interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed preserving liberty to pursue appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908.

V.Govinda Rao Vs Government of A.P. — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 13858 of 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

V.Govinda Rao S/o. Late Manikyam R/o. 17/A, Sai Master Apartments, Flat No. 9, Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 038

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Government of A.P.,

¶12

Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue, Secretarait buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Sub-Registrar of Assurances

¶14

O/o. Sub-Registrar Office, Pedda Amberpet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

3 The District Registrar

¶16

Ranga Reddy District. O/o. Sub Registrar Pedda Amberpet, R.R.District.

¶17

4 The Dsitrict Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

¶18

5 The Mandal Revenue Officer,

¶19

Hayatnagar Mandal, Hayatnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

6 Smt. Jakka Rukkamma W/o. Late Bhupal Reddy

¶21

R/o. H.No. 1-63, Gandicheruvu Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

7 Sri Jakka Krishna Reddy S/o. Late Bhupal Reddy R/o. H.No. 1-63, Gandhicheruvu Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶23

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶24

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 to issue any writ Order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in not registering the document vide pending No. 42 / 2002 in respect of the land of the petitioner herein admeausing A.01.03gts. in Survey No. 201, Gandicheruvu Village, Hayatnagar Madnal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Registration

¶25

Act and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register forthwith and release the document bearing No. 42/2002 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and to pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENUGOPAL

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

The Court made the following :

¶29

ORAL ORDER:

¶30

The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction of the 2^nd respondent the registering authority in registering the agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney executed on 9-8-2002 by respondents 6 and 7 in favour of the petitioner and presented before the 2^nd respondent for registration, to which the 2^nd respondent had accorded a pending registration document No. P 42/2002. The subject matter of the agreement of sale-cumGeneral Power of Attorney is an extent of Ac. 1-03 guntas in Sy.No. 201 of Gandicheuvu village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶31

Aggrieved by the inaction of the registering officer, the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No. 3758 of 2009. By the order of this Court dated 262-2009 the writ petition was disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to process the document No. P 42/2002 and either admit the document to registration after ensuring compliance with the relevant provisions of law or record the reasons for declining registration and communicate them to the petitioner.

¶32

The 2^nd respondent by the communication dated 18-4-2009 informed the petitioner that the document No. P 42/2002 was already refused registration on 31-3-2003 by an endorsement No. 69 of 2003 and that the reasons for refusal will be furnished on

¶33

application, if required. The 2^nd respondent also intimated the petitioner that he had no jurisdiction to admit the document once again for registration without orders from the District Registrar or from the competent court in an appeal preferred against the primary order refusing registration of the document.

¶34

By the order dated 31-3-2003, the document No. P 42/2002 presented by the petitioner for registration was refused on the ground that the 5^th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar had, by a letter dated 16-8-1995, intimated that the land in question is a Government land/assigned land.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.Venugopal states that the Collector, Ranga Reddy District by a memorandum dated 225-2003 bearing Ref No. 1970/2003 had informed the respondents 6 and 7, on their application, that as per the revenue records the land in Sy.No. 201 of an extent of Ac.5-23 guntas of Gandicheruvu, hamlet of Koheda village of Hayathnagar Mandal is a patta land and hence Noobjection certificate is issued. When the Collector has issued a Noobjection certificate, the 2^nd respondent ought to have registered the property, which is not a Government land or assigned land is the contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶36

It requires to be noticed that the Collector’s No-objection certificate is dated 22-5-2003, while the registration was refused by the 2^nd respondent on 31-3-2003. The petitioner has an appellate remedy before the District Registrar against an order of refusal, under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner may usefully pursue the appellate remedy, as after passing an order refusing registration, the registering officer-primary authority i.e., the 2^nd respondent has no locus paenetentiae to reconsider its decision without appellate interference.

¶37

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of preserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy before the

¶38

District Registrar, under section 72 of the Act.

¶39

It is contended by Sri P.Venugopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a similar situation this Court in W.P.No. 17115 of 2004, by the judgment dated 24-6-2008 in respect of the same Sy.No. i.e., Sy.No. 201 of Gandicheruvu Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District had observed that since the District Collector had issued a No-objection certificate and the District Collector is an officer superior to the Mandal Revenue Officer, the No-objection certificate issued by the District Collector should prevail and be considered by the registering officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be. The Sub-Registrar was directed in the writ petition to register the land in question. This Court needs make no observation on this contention. The judgment in W.P.No. 17115 of 2004 has declared the principle which the petitioner may usefully canvass before the District Registrar in the appeal to be preferred under Section 72 of the Act. The District Registrar is bound to follow the principle laid down by this Court in W.P.No. 17115 of 2004.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of with the observations above. No costs.

¶41

_________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 13^th July, 2009. Note: Issue copy as soon as possible. /B.O/ GRR

V.Govinda Rao v. Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Govinda Rao v. Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Ram Narayana, Vs District Collector Karimnagar District

Gopathi Shyam Rao, Vs The District Collector

Smt. Munni Bai Vs Prl. Secretary to Revenue

Salapu Ramana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

N. Kamalamani Vs The District Collector

Indukuri Rangaraju Vs Government of A.P. rep. by The District Collector