P. John Britto, v. The District Registrar
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court set aside the Subregistrar's order refusing to release a sale deed due to silence on the basis of refusal and lack of Section 22-A notification, directing an afresh hearing within four weeks.
What did the court decide?
Set aside the impugned order; respondent to grant opportunity of hearing and pass orders within four weeks.
What the court decided
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.23276 OF 2006
ORDER:
The petitioner claims to have purchased land admeasuring Ac.6-10 guntas in Sy.No.634 of Dabeerpur village and Gram Panchayat under Medchal Mandal in Rangareddy District from Sri K.Surendran son of Venkataramaiah and to have paid the entire sale consideration to the vendor before execution of the sale deed. It is his case that the vendor had executed a sale deed before the 2nd respondent, and had paid stamp duty to the Government for transfer of title and ownership as required under law, but the 2nd respondent had kept the sale deed pending.
The petitioner’s grievance is that, despite approaching the 2nd respondent on numerous occasions and orally requesting him to release the sale deed, the 2nd respondent had dodged the issue, and had not released the document. The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation on 27.9.2006 resulting in the 2nd respondent issuing a memo on 29.9.2006 informing the petitioner that the M.R.O, Medchal in his letter No.B/2321/96 of July, 1996 had stated that it was Government land and, accordingly, the said sale deed could not be released.
The petitioner would contend that, failure to release the document in question falls foul of provisions of Section 71 and 72 of the Registration Act, 1908. Under Section 71(1), the Subregistrar, refusing to register a document, is required to make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order on the document, and on the application made by any person executing
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Subregistrar fulfilled mandatory requirements under Sections 71 and 72 of the Registration Act when refusing to release the sale deed.
Whether the order refusing the petition identified a notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
The Petitioner
- respondent
The 2nd Respondent
Coram
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · March
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/23276/2006
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court