Allowed

Smt. T. Hemalatha v. The District Collecor

Telangana HC13 Dec 2010WP/27383/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the prohibition of transfer provisions regarding assigned lands did not apply as the land had been assigned before the relevant government order. Consequently, the petition filed under Article 226 was allowed to compel registration of sale deeds.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.4 directed to receive the sale deeds and register them in accordance with law.

Smt. T. Hemalatha Vs The District Collecor — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.27383 of 2010

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. T. Hemalatha

¶8

..... Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District & others.

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D. Seshasayana Reddy

¶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.27381 of 2010

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in not receiving and registering the documents proposed to be presented by the petitioner in respect of 166.66 and 266.66 square yards in Sy.No.580/3 of Rayachoty Village and Manadl, Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶18

The petitioner asserted that she has purchased the abovementioned properties under registered sale deeds. She has traced the title from the year 1951 and pleaded that these lands were assigned for the first time on 21.12.1951 to one A.K. Bashu Miah and that thereafter several registered transactions have taken place. The petitioner has placed reliance on certificate in L.Dis.No.320/2000, dated 14.12.2000 of the erstwhile Mandal Revenue Officer, Rayachoty, which reads as follows:

¶19

“CERTIFICATE

¶20

This to certify that the S.No.580/3 extent 5.80 acres is classified as Assigned Waste as per R.S.R. of Rayachoty Village and Mandal and it was assigned on 21.12.1951 to Sri A.K. Bashu Miah, S/o. Mohammad Usman of Rayachoty Mandal. There were several transactions taken place at SubRegistrar’s Office, Rayachoty. The provisions laid down in G.O.Ms.No. 1142 Revenue dated 14.08.1954 and Act of 1977 dated 21.11.1977 not attracted to the said assignment.”

¶21

The abovementioned certificate shows that G.O.Ms.No. 1142, dated 14.08.1954 is not attracted to the land in question, which was assigned prior to issuance of the said G.O. Unless the assignment contains prohibition on transfer, the provisions of Section 5 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 will not apply. Therefore, I find no justification for respondent No.4 not to accept the sale deeds presented by the petitioner for registration.

¶22

For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶23

Respondent No.4 is directed to receive the sale deeds and register the same in accordance with law.

¶24

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.34974 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.12.2010 ES

Smt. T. Hemalatha v. The District Collecor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. T. Hemalatha v. The District Collecor

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

Y. Ramachandra Reddy Vs The District Collector

D. Yallamma Vs The District Registrar

Smt. a. Leela Vs The Joint Collector

Koppisetti Surya Chandra Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Erukala (S.T.) Sangam (Regd.No.4622/93) Vs The District Collector

Sri Ambavaram Chenna Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its