Disposed

P. Yerikalamma S/o nagaiah v. The sub-Registrar (stamps and Registration)

Telangana HC3 Feb 2011WP/28174/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that with the withdrawal of the classification letter by the Revenue Officer, the Sub Registrar is directed to receive and register any documents presented by the petitioners regarding the disputed lands. Writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Sub Registrar directed to receive, process and register documents presented by petitioners regarding the lands.

P. Yerikalamma S/o nagaiah Vs The sub-Registrar… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

W.P. No. 28174 of 2007

¶3

Oral order:

¶4

Petitioner No. 1 claims to be owner and possessor of land in an extent of Acs. 1.68 cents in Sy. No. 818/2, Acs. 3.51 cents in Sy. No. 819, Ac. 0.72 cents and Ac. 0.31 cents in Sy. No. 846, Ac. 0.78 cents in Sy. No. 903 of Medakalavaripalli village, Badvel, Kadapa District, having purchased the same under document dated 08.03.1943 and sale deed dated 13.11.1947, while petitioner No.2 claims that he is the owner and possessor of land in an extent of

¶5

Ac. 0.30 cents in Sy. No. 903 of the very same village having purchased the same in the year 1943.

¶6

While so, the petitioners state that they being in need of finance, decided to sell them, and when they approached respondent No.1, namely the Sub Registrar, Badvel, they were informed that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, vide letter dated 28.04.2003 requested him not to entertain any documents for registration in respect of the lands located in the afore-mentioned survey numbers, because the said lands belong to Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Medakalavaripalli Gram Panchayat. Questioning the said letter of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, the petitioners state that they filed writ petition in W.P. No. 21603 of 2005, and this Court by order dated 06.12.2005 allowed the same holding that letter dated 28.04.2003, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, is without jurisdiction and that respondent No.1 is not under an obligation to act upon the same.

¶7

The petitioners state that when they applied for issuance of Valuation Certificate, in respect of the lands in Sy. Nos. 818/2, 819,

¶8

821/3 and 962/4, Madakavaripalli village, respondent No.1 issued the same with a note appended thereto, stating that as per the proceedings dated 19.02.2007 addressed to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gopavaram, the lands are classified as A.W. Government lands. Hence, questioning the said proceedings dated 19.02.2007 of respondent No.2, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gopavaram, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶10

Though respondent No.1 in the counter filed by him on 17.01.2007, has taken a stand that the lands in question belong to the government, but the fact remains, this Court, having taken note of the fact that the counter filed by respondent No.1 did not explain the basis for appending note to the valuation certificate, whereunder he has endorsed that the lands in Sy. Nos. 818/2, 819, 821/3 and 962/4, Madakavaripalli village, are classified as government lands, and therefore, the lands are not registrable, by order dated 23.06.2009, directed respondent No.1 to file additional counter, explaining the endorsement made in the note appended to the Valuation Certificate. Accordingly, respondent No.1 filed additional counter affidavit, stating that respondent No.2, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gopavaram, vide letter dated 03.07.2009, has withdrawn the letter dated 19.02.2007, issued by him earlier.

¶11

In view of withdrawal of the letter dated 19.02.2007, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that there can be no impediment for respondent No.1 to entertain documents for registration in respect of the land in question. He, however, contended that the petitioners have not presented any documents for registration, and submitted that if the present the documents, respondent No.1 will process and register them, if they are otherwise, in accordance with

¶12

law.

¶13

In view of the above stand taken by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

¶14

If the petitioners present any documents for registration in respect of the lands in question, respondent No.1, shall receive, process and register the same, if they are otherwise, in order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶15

_________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶16

Dated: 04^th February, 2011 KSR

P. Yerikalamma S/o nagaiah v. The sub-Registrar (stamps and Registration)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Yerikalamma S/o nagaiah v. The sub-Registrar (stamps and Registration)

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

P.Praveen Kumar Goud Vs Y.Harigopal

T. Prakash, Vs Shivalal Gouli

Danagri Ramchander Vs M/S Narne Estates Pvt. Limited

Sargari Mahipal Reddy, Vs Unni Venkataiah

Siyadri Bodaappaiahgari Appa Rao Vs The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Principal

Kurma Padma, Vs The Joint Collector