Allowed

V.M.Rama Subba Reddy v. The District Co-Operative Central Bank Rep.by its

Telangana HC11 Mar 2011WP/6268/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the applicant challenged the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a sale deed for land acquired via public auction, citing the land's status as assigned land. The court held that registration could not be denied merely on this ground.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Sub-Registrar (Urban), Kadapa City and District, to receive and process the document submitted by the petitioner in respect of his land in Sy.No.18/1 of Rama Raju Palli Village, Kadapa M

V.M.Rama Subba Reddy Vs The District Co-Operative… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6268 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner assails the action of the Sub-Registrar (Urban), Kadapa City and District, the second respondent, in refusing to entertain the sale deed presented by him in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.18/1 of Rama Raju Palli Village, Kadapa Mandal and District. He seeks a consequential direction to the second respondent to entertain the said sale deed and register the same.

¶5

It is the averment of the petitioner that the subject land was originally assigned in favour of Puli Bennaiah, who mortgaged the same in favour of the District Co-operative Central Bank, Kadapa, for availing loan facilities. As the said Puli Bennaiah could not repay the same, the land was brought to sale by way of a public auction in E.P.No.7/2001-2002. In the auction sale conducted, the petitioner was emerged as the highest bidder and he had paid the purchase money of Rs.1,30,000/-, and thereafter, the sale was confirmed and Sale Certificate in Form No.10 dated 30.08.2006 was issued in his favour. Subsequently, possession was also delivered to him. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that he intended to sell the land to the proposed vendors, and for that purpose when he approached the second respondent, the second respondent refused to accept the documents for registration on the ground that the land in question is assigned land.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had purchased the land in question in an open auction, the second respondent cannot refuse registration.

¶7

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner had purchased the said land in an open auction and paid the entire sale consideration, and therefore, the second respondent cannot refuse to receive the documents and process the same.

¶8

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the Sub-Registrar

¶9

(Urban), Kadapa City and District, the second respondent herein, to receive and process the document submitted by the petitioner in respect of his land in Sy.No.18/1 of Rama Raju Palli Village, Kadapa Mandal and District in accordance with law, subject to compliance with due procedure and formalities. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

_________________________________ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶11

Date: 11.03.2011 va

V.M.Rama Subba Reddy v. The District Co-Operative Central Bank Rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.M.Rama Subba Reddy v. The District Co-Operative Central Bank Rep.by its

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

Boya Eramma Vs The District Collector

S. Rasool Basha Vs The District Collector

Bokkisam Srinivasa Rao Vs STate of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its Principal Secrtary

Y.Manjula Vs the District Collector and 3 Others

N.Ramaiah Vs the District Collector and 3 Others

Smt.a.Narayanamma and 6 Others Vs the Govt of A.P Rep.by Its Commissioner and 2 Others