Allowed

Mahaboob Bee, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC22 Jul 2011WP/19836/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition claiming the petitioner could register a sale deed for assigned lands without a No Objection Certificate. The court held such a requirement is unjustifiable as alienation was permitted prior to a 1954 prohibition. The Sub Registrar was directed to entertain the document without seeking the certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent (Sub Registrar) to entertain the sale transaction document and not insist for a 'No Objection Certificate' from respondents 1 to 3.

Mahaboob Bee, Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19836 OF 2011

¶3

Dated:22.07.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mahaboob Bee .. Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District and others .. Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.19836 OF 2011

¶10

O R D E R:

¶11

The writ petitioner claims that she is the absolute possessor and owner of the lands to an extent of Ac.0.72 cents in Survey No.1411 and Acs.2.26 cents in Survey No.141-2 situate at Gollapuram Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District. Originally the subject lands were assigned in favour of one A.Hussain Sabi and after his demise his son Shaik Hussainsab, who was the petitioner’s husband, succeeded to the property. After her husband’s demise, her name was mutated in the revenue records and pattedar pass books were also issued in her name and since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, with an intention to sell away the property, when she presented the document of sale transaction concerning these lands for registration, the 4^th respondent – Sub Registrar is insisting for securing a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the respondents 1 to 3 – the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penugonda and the Tahasildar, Hindupur of Anantapur District respectively.

¶12

In the instant case, the subject lands appear to have been assigned initially on 25.04.1929. Prior to 1954, even though lands may have been assigned by the State, there is no prohibition against its alienation. Prohibition of alienation of assigned lands was only contemplated in the year 1954. Therefore, action of the Sub-Registrar in asking for ‘No Objection Certificate’ prior to registering the document

¶13

presented by the writ petitioner is not justifiable.

¶14

The 4^th respondent is therefore, directed to entertain any document, evidencing the sale transaction of the land comprising of Ac.0.72 cents in Survey No.141-1 and Ac.2.26 cents in Survey No.141-2 of Gollapuram Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District, and deal with the same in accordance with law and he shall not insist for securing or obtaining the ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the respondents 1 to 3.

¶15

With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of, at the admission stage with the consent of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra and Rayalaseema). No costs.

¶16

----------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)

¶17

22.07.2011 KH

Mahaboob Bee, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaboob Bee, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jalla Ravi Vs The State of A.P.

M/s. Sel-Gkc Joint Venture, rep. by its Authorised Vs The Government of a.P., represented by its

A. Muthyala Naidu Vs The Government of A.P.

B.Sanjeeve Reddy Vs The Government of Ap., rep.by its Principal secretary

M/s.Ramky Infrastructure Ltd., rep.byi ts authorized signato Vs The Government of a.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary

K. Koteswara Reddy Vs The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Principal