Dismissed

Anusuri Satyanarayana v. The Sub Registrar

Telangana HC14 Dec 2010WP/31332/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of five writ petitions and five miscellaneous petitions as infructuous after finding they were identical to a previously decided case which directed the respondent to consider documents and record reasons under the Act if registration fails.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; directing Respondent to consider documents for registration; noting requirement to record reasons under Section 71 if registration fails.

Anusuri Satyanarayana Vs The Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

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

¶2

Writ Petition Nos.31353, 31306, 31332, 31345 and 31346 of 2010

¶3

DT.14.12.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Ippili Bhoolokeswara Rao

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Sub-Registrar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam.

¶9

… Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr.P.B.Vijaya Kumar

¶11

Counsel for respondent: AGP for Revenue

¶12

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶13

COMMON ORDER:

¶14

These writ petitions are filed with the common grievance that the respondent has not been receiving the documents sought to be presented by the petitioners for registration of the plots claimed to be belonging to them.

¶15

At the hearing, it is agreed between the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that a writ petition of similar nature i.e., W.P.No.8268 of 2010, was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 15.04.2010, wherein the following direction was given:

¶16

“Following the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing

¶17

respondent or any other Registering Officer to consider the document presented by the petitioner for registration. Be it noted, if for any reason, the document presented is not registered, it is incumbent on the part of the Registering Officer to record and furnish reasons under Section 71 of the Act. Even thereafter, if the petitioner has any grievance, he may file appeal before the appellate authority under Section 72 of the Act. Thereafter, if any adverse order is passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner can file a suit under Section 77 of the Act.”

¶18

Having regard to the fact that these writ petitions are identical to W.P.No.8268 of 2010, the same are disposed of in terms of the above reproduced order.

¶19

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, W.P.M.P.Nos.39891, 39836 39868, 39882 and 39883 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶21

Date: 14.12.2010. Note: Issue CC by Monday. (b/o) VGB

Anusuri Satyanarayana v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anusuri Satyanarayana 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

Koppisetti Surya Chandra Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. T. Hemalatha Vs The District Collecor

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

Deepathi Avenues Pvt.Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mubarakunnisa Begum Vs The District Panchayat Officer

G.Srinivasulu Reddy Vs The Tahasildar,Bukkarayasamudram Mandal