C.Dhanalakshmi Devi v. The District Registrar,Ramnagar, Anantapur

Telangana HC16 Jun 2010WP/9338/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition and contempt case, the High Court quashed an interim order and noted that the Sub-Registrar had released the impugned document without insisting on further payment. The court closed both proceedings, noting that the petitioner's grievance was redressed and calling for systemic rectification.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition and Contempt Case are closed. No order as to costs.

C.Dhanalakshmi Devi Vs The District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.9338 of 2009 and

¶3

CONTEMPT CASE No.325 of 2010

¶4

COMMON ORDER:

¶5

The petitioners purchased an extent of Ac.3.74 cents of land in Sy.No.10 of Kakkalapalli village, Anantapur District, for a sum of Rs.1,87,000/- from one A.Subrahmanyam and P.Suresh. They approached the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ramnagar, Anantapur/the second respondent herein, for necessary data. They were furnished the information to the effect that the cost of the land as per the basic value register is Rs.45,000/- per acre and a statement through CARD system was issued to them. The petitioners presented the document for registration duly paying the registration charges and stamp duty according to that value. The second respondent refused to register the document. Hence, the writ petition.

¶6

The second respondent issued notice dated 16/03/2009 requiring the petitioners to pay a further amount of Rs.3,11,595/-. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same.

¶7

While issuing notice before admission, this Court passed an interim order, taking exception to the notice dated 16/03/2009 and observing that it is referable only to Section 40-A of the Registration Act, directing the second respondent to process the document on the basis of the market value that existed as on the date of presentation of the document and complete the process within four weeks. Contempt case is filed alleging non-

¶8

compliance.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶10

In the counter-affidavit filed in the contempt case, it is stated that a wrong value of the land was fed to the computer and that the same resulted in furnishing improper information. It is stated that the petitioners are under obligation to pay a further amount of Rs.3,11,595/- towards stamp duty and registration charges.

¶11

After hearing the parties at length and on perusal of the record, this Court found serious discrepancies both as regards the entering of market values in the basic value register and the functioning of the CARD system. Direction was issued to the Principal Secretary of Revenue Department to offer his comments. Accordingly, the Principal Secretary filed an affidavit dealing with the discrepancies and mal-functioning of the system. It is ultimately stated that steps are being taken to identify the root cause, the persons responsible therefor and to search methods to rectify the same.

¶12

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue has informed this Court that the document has since been released to the petitioner without insisting on payment of further amount. With this, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.

¶13

The Writ Petition and the Contempt Case are closed. It is hoped that the steps indicated by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, would be taken with required amount of earnestness.

¶14

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 15^th June, 2010 SKM

C.Dhanalakshmi Devi v. The District Registrar,Ramnagar, Anantapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Dhanalakshmi Devi v. The District Registrar,Ramnagar, Anantapur

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

Chalapathi Chit Fund Private Ltd., Guntur Vs Mr. Adsumalli Malleswara Rao

N. Srinivasan Vs a. Madhavachari

K.Vinodhar Vs M.Sudershanam

Jeevaraj Barde Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer,Kamareddy,Nizamabad

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Sri Ch. Hanman Singh

Indian Hair Industries (P) Ltd. Vs Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam