Allowed

K.S.Parvathamma v. TheDistrict Collector

Telangana HC9 Dec 2010WP/25620/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the refusal of the Collector to register a sale deed due to lack of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from land owners. The court held that the ten-year prohibition on alienation had expired and directed the issuance of a mandamus to register the document.

What did the court decide?

A mandamus was issued directing the respondent No. 4 to receive the document presented by the petitioner and register it, subject to compliance with the Registration Act and Stamp Act.

K.S.Parvathamma Vs TheDistrict Collector — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

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

¶2

THRUSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.25620 of 2010

Between:

K.S. Parvathamma

..... Petitioner

AND

The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District & others.

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Srinivas

¶13

Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Revenue

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25620 of 2010

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in insisting on production of “No Objection Certificate” (for short, ‘NOC’) for the purpose of registration of the land admeasuring Ac.2.19 cents in Sy.No.199/2 of Kakkalapally Village, Anantapur Rural Mandal and District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.4 to receive and register the document presented by him without insisting on NOC.

¶18

I have heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶19

No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents despite adjourning the case on two occasions at the request made on their behalf. The petitioner pleaded that her father-in-law was granted assignment over the land (admeasuring Ac.8.73 cents) in Sy.No.199/2 on 15.01.1951 by the then Tahsildar, Anantapur. Following the said assignment, a patta was stated to have been granted. After the demise of her father-in-law, the property was stated to have been partitioned among the petitioner’s husband and his brothers. The property in question is stated to have fallen to the share of the petitioner’s husband. After the death of her husband, the petitioner succeeded to the said property. When she approached respondent No.4 with an intention to present a sale deed, he declined to receive the same by insisting on NOC from respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner pleaded that while no such NOC is required, there is no absolute prohibition on alienation except to the limited extent of the condition of non-alienation for a period of ten years. She has further pleaded that as the period of ten years has expired long time back, there is no embargo on the transfer of land.

¶20

At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above pleas.

¶21

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has opposed the above contentions.

¶22

I have perused a copy of the ‘D’ Form patta issued in the name of K. Kannaiah, who is stated to be the father-in-law of the petitioner. Though there is a contradiction between condition No.3 and another condition, which is written in manuscript regarding prohibition on the transfer of land, the manuscript portion reads that there is a prohibition on alienation for initial ten years. Inasmuch as a specific condition has been added with manuscript, as an additional condition, it can be reasonably presumed that the same is incorporated as a special condition, which will override the printed proforma condition contained in clause (3) of the patta.

¶23

For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any justification for respondent No.4 for not receiving the document and registering the same. A Mandamus therefore shall be issued to respondent No.4 to receive the document presented by the petitioner and register the same, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act.

¶24

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.32722 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶26

Date: 09.12.2010 ES

¶27

____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

K.S.Parvathamma v. TheDistrict Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Parvathamma v. TheDistrict Collector

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

B.Ramulamma Vs The District Collector

Satti Subba Reddy Vs The Collector, Visakhapatnam District

G.Ramamurthy Vs The Tahsildar

Nadella Nagaratnam Vs REvenue Divisional Officer

Sudulagunta Seetharamaiah Vs The Director Land Survey and Records

Ramakurthy Udayabaskara Rao Vs The Tahsildar,Kakinada Rural mandal, Kakinada