Allowed

B.Venkateswara Reddy v. The District Registrar

Telangana HC4 Jul 2011WP/16794/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed challenging non-disposal of a representation regarding registration of a land purchase document. Petitioner alleged the Sub-Registrar failed to publish mandatory notification under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act. Court directed the District Registrar not to refuse to receive or entertain the document.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Registrar not to refuse to receive or entertain the petitioner's document and to deal with it in accordance with the law.

B.Venkateswara Reddy Vs The District Registrar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 16794 OF 2011

¶3

Date: 04.07.2011

¶4

Between:-

¶5

B.Venkateswara Reddy

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And The District Registrar and another

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

This Court made the following:

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No. 16794 OF 2011

¶12

O R D E R:

¶13

The petitioner complaining that the representation submitted by him on 16.02.2011 to the District Registrar, Kurnool, is not yet disposed of, filed this writ petition.

¶14

It is stated by the petitioner that he has proposed to purchase Ac.0-40 cents of land situated in survey No.70/W/1, at Joharapuram village, Kurnool Mandal and District. When he tried to find out from the office of the Sub-Registrar, as to whether any notification has been published in accordance with Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908, no information was forthcoming. Hence, he submitted a representation on 16.02.2011, to the District Registrar. Even this representation has not been attended to so far and hence, he filed the present writ petition. It should also be noted at the same time that when he sought for information under Right to Information Act, 2005,

¶15

the Collector has pointed out in his response on 25.11.2011 that no such notification in terms of Section 22(A) of the Act has been received by the Collector.

¶16

Section 17 of the Act, specified the classes of documents which shall be compulsorily registered. Of them, any non-testamentary instrument, which purported to create any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs.100/- and upwards in relation to or any immovable property, is one such class of instruments, set out under Section 17 of the aforementioned Act. Section 22A of the Act, as amended by A.P.Act 19 of 2007, brings out in detail the classes of documents, which have been prohibited from being registered by the Sub-Registrar concerned. In terms of Section 71 of the Act, every SubRegistrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situated within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his book No.2 and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document and on application made by any person either executing or claiming under the document, furnish him a copy of the reason so recorded without payment and without any unnecessary delay.

¶17

It is, therefore, abundantly clear that any non-testamentary document creating a right, specified under Section 17 of the Act is presented for registration, the same shall have to be received, processed and appropriate decision has to be taken therein keeping in view the prohibitions contained under Section 22(A) of the Act and then follow up action has to be taken as is required by Section 71 of the said Act.

¶18

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd

¶19

respondent not to refuse to receive or entertain the document presented by the petitioner and deal with the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J

¶21

4^th July 2011 lmv

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No. 16794 OF 2011

¶24

Date: 04.07.2011

¶25

lmv

B.Venkateswara Reddy v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Venkateswara Reddy v. The District 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

Saireddy Jayamma Vs Payam Krishna

M.Rama krishna Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

S.Lalithamm , S.Lalitha, Vs The District collector, Chittoor.

Y.Ravindra Reddy, S/o Hanumaiah, Vs The District Collector

Madupu Lachaiah Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Sugali Venkatesh Naik Vs The District Collector