Allowed

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

Telangana HC4 Jul 2011WP/17006/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment holds that lands assigned in 1928 are not covered by the prohibition on alienation introduced in 1954 or the 1971 Act. Consequently, the 4th respondent was directed to entertain and register the conveyance deeds presented by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with directions to the 4th respondent to entertain and register the conveyance deed concerning the lands.

Y.Ravindra Reddy, S/o Hanumaiah, Vs The District… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 17006 OF 2011

Date: 04.07.2011

Between:-

Y.Ravindra Reddy

… Petitioner

And The District Collector, Ananthapur District and others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

This Court made the following:

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No. 17006 OF 2011

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition has been instituted for declaring the action of the 4^th respondent-Sub Registrar, Hindupur, Anantapur District, in not entertaining the documents presented by the petitioner in respect of land in survey No.243-2 to an extent of Ac.0.58 cents and survey No.243-3 to an extent of Ac.1-42 cents of Utukuru village, Parigi Mandal, Ananthapur District for registration and insisting for No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the revenue establishment.

¶14

2. The 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar, Parigi Mandal, appears to have instructed the 4^th respondent that the lands in Sy. No.243 are assigned lands and consequently, the 4^th respondent, in view of Section 22-A (i) (a) of the Registration Act, 2005 has been insisting the petitioner for submission of NOC from the revenue establishment in

¶15

view of the prohibition contained against registration.

¶16

3. At my instance, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue has obtained instructions in the matter from the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent has pointed out that the lands situated in Sy. Nos.243-2 and 243-3 of Utukuru village have been assigned initially in favour of Sri Hanumanthappa gari Thimmaiah through proceedings in D.A.R.Dis. No.387/38, dated 26-09-1928.

¶17

4. As is now clear that these lands were assigned in favour of initial beneficiaries in the year 1928. Prior to 1954, the State Government has not contemplated any prohibition against alienation of the assigned lands. Only in the year 1954, prohibition against alienation of such lands was contemplated. Hence, all such lands which were assigned prior to 1954 are not only heritable but, in the given circumstances, they are also alienable. In view of this and in view of the fact that the lands in question were assigned in the year 1928, their alienations have not been prohibited. The transactions which have been carried out by others prior to coming into force of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1971, render the lands undergo change in their status. Those lands cannot be described as assigned lands any longer. Hence, there cannot be any prohibition against the registration of any conveyance deed that might be presented with regard to such lands.

¶18

5. In view of the legal principle, the 4^th respondent is directed to entertain, process and deal with the conveyance deed or deeds that the petitioner might present concerning the lands situated in Sy.Nos.243-2, 243-3 and 250-3 of Utukuru village, Parigi Mandal, Ananthapur District, provided they are in accordance with law. The 4^th

¶19

respondent will register the documents after processing them in accordance with law.

¶20

6. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J

¶23

4^th July 2011 lmv

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶25

WRIT PETITION No. 17006 OF 2011

¶26

Date: 04.07.2011

¶27

lmv

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

B.Venkateswara Reddy Vs The District Registrar

Madupu Lachaiah Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Sugali Venkatesh Naik Vs The District Collector