Allowed

P. Ghayasuddin v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Mar 2011WP/31037/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition where the petitioner, who had previously obtained a civil decree establishing title and possession over land, was refused registration of a sale deed on the ground that the land was government property. The Court directed the respondents to register the documents.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the 2nd respondents to receive the documents and possess them for registration in accordance with law.

P. Ghayasuddin Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.31037 OF 2010

Dt: 16-03-2011

Between:

P.Ghayasuddin

…..Petitioner

And

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the District Collector, Kadapa and another.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO.31037 OF 2010

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

The petitioner has averred that he is the owner and possessor of

¶15

1 ½ cents of land in Sy.No.42/B2 bearing municipal door No.10/70/9, which

¶16

he has sold in favour of one B. Fairoz Khan and presented the documents before the 2^nd respondent. However, the 2^nd respondent refused to register the same on the ground that the aforementioned survey number is Government land.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Judgment of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah, dated 27.4.2000, wherein the Civil Court has held that the present petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the aforementioned suit has proved his title and possession over the suit schedule property as well as his vendors title and possession over the same. The learned Counsel submits that the respondents never challenged the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.791 of 1998 and hence, as the petitioner has been held to be the owner of the suit schedule property. Therefore, registration cannot be refused by the 2^nd respondent.

¶18

The learned Counsel for the second respondent submits that the suit property is Government land and hence, no registration can be effected.

¶19

After perusing the Judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.791 of 1998, it is clear that the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the aforementioned suit, has been held to be the owner and possessor of land measuring 1 ½ cents in dispute. The present petitioner has also sold the said land in favour of one B. Fairoz Khan.

¶20

Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed and directions are issued to the 2^nd respondents to receive the documents submitted by the petitioner and possess the same for registration in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

________________________________ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶22

March 16, 2011. Tjmr

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶24

W.P.NO.31037 OF 2010

¶25

DATE: 16.03.2011

P. Ghayasuddin v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Ghayasuddin v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chukkapalli Kodanda Ramaiah Vs the State Rep.by Its the Joint Collector and Another

Poddi Pullaiah Vs the Tahsildar and Another

N. Venkataswamy Chowdary Vs The District Collector

Smt. Swarna Susilamma Prakasam Dist. Vs the Dist. Collector Prakasam Dist. and 4 Othrs

Mr. G. Yadaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. Shaga Yadagiri Vs Government of Ap., Rep by its