Allowed

Tallapudi Joga Rao, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC21 Mar 2011WP/4801/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the attempt by a Gram Panchayat and Sarpanch to lay a road over their land based on an unregistered surrender document. The High Court held that the document was invalid as it was not registered, restraining the respondents from interfering with possession.

What did the court decide?

Respondents restrained from interfering with petitioner's possession without due process. Connected W.P.M.P.s disposed of.

Tallapudi Joga Rao, Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4801 OF 2010

¶5

DATED:21.3.2011

¶6

Between: Tallapudi Joga Rao and others … Petitioners

¶7

And The District Collector Eluru Town, West Godavari District and others … Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioners :Sri T.L.Krishna Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Asst. Govt. Pleader for Panchayat Raj

¶9

Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri G. Elisha, Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayats Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri Srinivas Dammalapati

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.4801 OF 2010

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 pleaded that they are owners of Ac.3.89 cents in R.S. No.348/9 of Peda Amiram Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District, that they have sold an extent of 96.8 sq. yards with tiled house thereon out of Acs.0.06 cents in R.S. No.348/9 to petitioner No.4 on 7.9.2009 vide registered document No.2755/2009 and that they have also sold a similar extent of land in the same survey number to petitioner No.5 on the same date. They further averred that they have sold an extent of 48.4 sq. yards of land with 238 sq. feet plinth area with asbestos sheet roof out of 0.06 cents in R.S. No.348/9 to petitioner No.6 on 7.9.2009. They have raised a similar plea regarding sale of 48.4 sq.yards of land in the same survey number to petitioner No.7 under registered document on the same date. It is their pleaded case that while all the petitioners have been in possession of the respective properties, Gram Panchayat, Peda Amiram Village and its Sarpanch, respondents 3 and 4, have created a document as if some of the persons, including the petitioners 4 and 6 have surrendered a part of the above mentioned property in favour of respondent No.3 – Gram Panchayat for laying a road. As the petitioners felt aggrieved by the attempts to lay the road over the land, they have filed the present writ petition.

¶15

At the hearing, Sri T.L. Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited my attention to a document under which the land was

¶16

purported to have been surrendered and submitted that the said document was stated to have been executed on 23.8.2007 while the properties in favour of petitioner Nos.4 and 6, who are also shown as the persons who have executed the said document, were sold under registered sale deeds only on 7.9.2009. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the whole theory putforth by respondents 3 and 4 is totally false.

¶17

Sri G. Elisa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 – Gram Panchayat, submitted that as the property was surrendered by the owners, respondent Nos.3 and 4 started laying the road.

¶18

I have carefully perused the counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4. In my opinion, keeping aside the fact whether the document which is being relied upon by respondent Nos.3 and 4 is genuine or not, a perusal of the same would show that it is not a registered one. It is not in dispute that the property in question is worth more than Rs.100/(Rupees one hundred only) and therefore under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, every property, the value of which is above Rs.100/- is liable for registration. Unless the property is conveyed through such a registered document, no rights get transferred to the purported transferee. Admittedly, the document under which the rights are stated to have been surrendered has not been registered. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, being functionaries of the State, cannot be permitted to take away the private lands without following due process of law. Lest, such an action would amount to expropriatory violating Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶19

For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are restrained from interfering with the petitioners’ possession of the property in question without following due process of law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.V.M.P. Nos.750 and 763 of 2011 and W.P.M.P. No.6178 of 2010, filed by the respective parties, are disposed of. No costs.

¶20

_________________________ (C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 21.3.2011 bnr

Tallapudi Joga Rao, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tallapudi Joga Rao, 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

Kagitha Bhanu, Vs The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal

Chandaluri Ravindra Babu Vs The Collector and District Magistrate

Ippili Krishna Murty [died] Vs Neethubilli Appalaswamy [died]

P.Srihari Rao, Vs The Government of A.P.

D. Govind Vs The District Collector

P.Kishan and Sons Vs The District Collector