Allowed

Vuppala Nageswara Rao Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC17 Jul 2012WP/21524/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a declaration that the respondents' refusal to register a sale deed for a flat in Visakhapatnam was illegal. The refusal was based on G.O.Ms.No.657, issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, which had declared registration of such documents opposed to public policy. The Court held that since Section 22-A was struck down and the order unde

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to accept the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the flat and consider it for registration without reference to G.O.Ms.No.657 dated 08.10.2011.

Vuppala Nageswara Rao Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.21524 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in refusing to receive and register the document in respect of Flat No.11, Second Floor, Block-A of Sea-shells Apartments covered by Sy.No.1027/Part of Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The petitioner is the owner of the aforementioned residential flat. He claims that he purchased undivided share of 49 sq. yards of land in the total extent of 18,729 sq. yards of land covered by Town Sy.No.1027 (P) of Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam, under a registered sale deed dated 09.12.1991, from M/s. Poornima Constructions Private Limited and 11 other companies and partnership firms. According to the petitioner, his vendors, himself and a builder by name Ugesh and Madhav Builders Private Limited constructed the apartment, in which the subject flat is located, by entering into an agreement dated 07.12.1991. After development and constructions, individual flats were sold to various persons.

¶6

In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that when he intended to sell his flat and approached the respondents for registration of his document, the respondents are not accepting the document for registration on the ground that the subject land is covered by G.O.Ms.No.657 dated 08.10.2011 issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶7

It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the order dated 31.01.1989 passed by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements & Land

¶8

Records, the 1^st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.657, Revenue (Registration-I) Department, dated 08.10.2001, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 22-A of the Act, as amended by the Registration (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1999 (Andhra Pradesh Act 4 of 1999), declaring the registration of documents pertaining to the subject land in Town Sy.No.1027 of Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam, and other lands specified in the said G.O., as opposed to public policy. However, subsequently, in W.P.Nos.21487 and 21493 of 2000, vide common order dated 11.09.2009, a Division Bench of this Court has set aside the order dated 31.01.1989 of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement & Land Records, and the same was confirmed by the Supreme Court, and in view of the same, the very impugned G.O.Ms.No.657 dated 08.10.2001 becomes obsolete. Taking into consideration of this fact and also the fact that Section 22-A of the Act, under which the impugned G.O.Ms.No.657 dated 08.10.2001 was issued, was struck down, this Court in WPMP.No.21756 of 2012 in W.P.No.16956 of 2012 granted interim order on 14.06.2012. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the aforementioned prayer.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶10

It is to be seen that Section 22-A of the Act, under which the impugned G.O. was issued, was already struck down. Further, the order dated 31.01.1989 passed by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements & Land Records, basing on which the impugned G.O. was issued, was set aside by common order dated 11.09.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos. 21487 and 21493 of 2000 and the same was upheld by the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, on the basis of the impugned G.O. issued by the 1^st respondent, the respondents cannot refuse to receive the document pertaining to the subject land and consider the same for registration.

¶11

For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to accept the document to be presented by the petitioner in respect of Flat No.11, Second Floor, Block-A of Sea-shells Apartments, covered by Sy.No.1027/Part of Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam, and consider the same for registration without reference to G.O.Ms.No.657 dated 08.10.2011. However, it is made clear that it is open to the respondents to verify whether the document to be presented by the petitioner is in conformity with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, Registration Act and other relevant laws.

¶12

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

¶13

In view of disposal of the writ petition, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶14

___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J

¶15

17.07.2012 v v

Vuppala Nageswara Rao Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vuppala Nageswara Rao Srinivasa Rao, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Grandhi Manikyala Rao Industries(P) Ltd. Vs Food Corporation of India, Regional Office

M/s. K. Suryanarayana Raju Vs Food Corporation of India

M/s. Sri Dhairyalakshmi Rice Mill, Vs Food Corporation of India, Regional Office

J.Srinivasulu Vs Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Agro Tech Foods Limited, Vs The Union of India

Saif Hussain Vs The Government of India