Dismissed

Vummadi Anil Kumar Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC23 Jul 2012WP/17028/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the registering authority cannot refuse to receive a mortgage deed document solely because it insists on a 'No Objection Certificate' from revenue authorities. The petitioner was directed to present the documents, and the authority was directed to process them in accordance with the law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to present mortgage deed documents; registering authority directed to consider and process them in accordance with law without insisting on 'No Objection Certificate' from revenue

Vummadi Anil Kumar Reddy, Vs State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.17028 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in insisting the petitioner to get ‘No Objection Certificate’ in respect of Plot Nos.400 & 401 admeasuring 110 sq. yards each situated at Sy.No.543 of Mahatma Gandhi Auto Nagar, Ward No.5, Prakash Nagar, Kothapalli Village & Panchayat, Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The petitioner claims ownership and possession in respect of the aforesaid plots. It is stated that one plot was purchased in the year 1999 by registered document No.750/99 and another plot was purchased in the year 2002 vide registered document No.4188/02.

¶6

In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that as he is in need of money for his business, he intended to take loan from the Union Bank of India by mortgaging his plots and approached the 3^rd respondent for registration of the mortgage deed, but the 3^rd respondent is refusing to receive and register the same on the ground that the plots are Inam lands. It is also stated that the 3^rd respondent is insisting for submission of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the revenue authorities.

¶7

In the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent-Joint SubRegistrar, Proddatur, it is stated that the petitioner has not presented any document as claimed in the writ affidavit. It is also stated that if any

¶8

document in respect of the subject plots is presented before the registering authority, the same will be received and processed in accordance with law.

¶9

Except the allegation of the petitioner that the respondents are refusing to receive the document for registration and insisting for submission of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the revenue authorities, there is no material placed on record in proof of the said allegation. When the petitioner is claiming ownership and title over the subject plots by virtue of registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.750/99 and 4188/02, there is no reason or justification for the 3^rd respondent in refusing to receive the same and insisting for production of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the revenue authorities as there is no such provision under the scheme of Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’) and the rules made thereunder. Further, as per the provisions of the Act, if there is any objection for the registering authority to register the document, it shall communicate the reasons for refusal by way of endorsement as contemplated under Section 71 of the Act, but it cannot refuse to receive the documents whenever they are presented.

¶10

For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the specific averment in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not presented any document for registration, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to present the document in respect of Plot Nos.400 & 401 admeasuring 110 sq. yards each situated at Sy.No.543 of Mahatma Gandhi Auto Nagar, Ward No.5, Prakash Nagar, Kothapalli Village & Panchayat, Kadapa District, before the 3^rd respondent, and if any such document is presented, the 3^rd respondent is directed to consider and process the same in accordance with law

¶11

and without insisting on submission of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the revenue authorities. However, it is made clear that if there are any objections for registration, it is open to the registering authorities to assign the reasons for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶12

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶13

The miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶14

___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J

¶15

23.07.2012 v v

Vummadi Anil Kumar Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vummadi Anil Kumar Reddy, v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mulam Aravalu, Vs The District Collector

Doddi Achi Babu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Sri Subramanyam Auto Electrical works Vs The Government of A.P

K. Ramesh Babu, S/o. K. Paul Raj Vs The District Collector

Sri. Jugal Kishore, Vs The District Collector

G.Venkateshwarlu Vs The Arbitrator/Additional Joint Collector