Allowed

O.Sanker Reddy, v. The Sub-Registrar

Telangana HC21 Apr 2011WP/11114/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court examined a writ petition challenging the refusal by a Sub-Registrar to entertain a sale deed for lands in Paidipalle Village. The Court held that absent a specific prohibition, transactions exceeding Rs. 100 fall under Section 22-A. The Sub-Registrar was directed to register the documents.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to not decline to entertain sale documents and process them in accordance with law.

O.Sanker Reddy, Vs The Sub-Registrar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 11114 OF 2011

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This Writ Petition has been instituted complaining about the action of the respondent Sub-Registrar, Chandragiri declining to entertain transactions of sale relating to lands possessed by the writ petitioners situate in Paidipalle Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶5

Paidipalle Village was an inam village. In pursuance of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion of Ryotwari) Act, 1948, after the abolition of the estate, settlement has been worked out for Paidipalle inam village. State Government, through their G.O.Ms.No. 548 Revenue (JA) Department, dated 28.01.2003 considered the entire matter and directed the Collector, Chittoor to distribute ryotwari pattas to all such enjoyers, who are found in possession of the land shown in the annexure to the said Order in Paidipalle inam estate village. Accordingly, the District Collector seems to have distributed pattas in favour of the occupiers of land in the inam village. The case of the writ petitioners is that they are few of them in whose favour such pattas were granted. When they propose to alienate these lands, by entering into transactions of sale, the SubRegistrar is objecting to it. He is not even entertaining the documents for the purpose of registration.

¶6

So long as there is no prohibition imposed against entertaining the documents for registration purposes and so long as the provisions of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 are not attracted, all such transactions of immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- are liable to be registered.

¶7

Hence, the respondent is directed not to decline to entertain any document concerning sale of immovable property belonging to the writ

¶8

petitioners, situate in Paidipalle Village and receive the same and process them in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon.

¶9

With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of, after hearing the learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue. No costs.

¶10

---------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 21^st April 2011 Issue CC in a week. ksld

O.Sanker Reddy, v. The Sub-Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.Sanker Reddy, 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

Sri Shekar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department

Basipogu Lazar Guntur Dist. and 2 Othrs Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Vishwanadham Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Malladi Srinivasa Rao Vs The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada.

B.Kumara Swamy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.K.Vishala Vs The District Collector,Guntur District, Guntur