Allowed

K. Murali Mohan, v. District Collector

Telangana HC1 Aug 2012WP/21882/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the refusal to register a sale deed regarding land assigned in 1952 on market value terms, arguing it was non-transferable only under post-1958 policies. The Court held such land is akin to sold property and ordered authorities to register the document without raising objections about its status as assigned land.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 to entertain and process the sale deed for registration without raising any objection that the land is an assigned land, provided it is in accordance with the Stamp and Re

K. Murali Mohan, Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.21882 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 01.08.2012

Between:

K. Murali Mohan.

…..Petitioner

And

District Collector, Guntur District & others.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.21882 of 2012

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for revenue, appearing for respondents.

¶14

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in treating the land admeasuring Ac.2.12 gts., situated in Sy.No.201/4 of Tadepalli village and Mandal of Guntur District as non-transferable/prohibited property, as illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to respondent No.4 to entertain the sale deed for registration without raising any objection.

¶15

It is the case of petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the aforesaid land, which was assigned to him by proceedings of the Collector, Guntur, dated 21^st of January 1952, issued in Proceedings R.Dis.No.21591-51, on payment of market value. It is stated that consequently, the petitioner has paid market value and the said land was assigned to him. In this writ petition, it is

¶16

the grievance of the petitioner that when he desired to sell the land and when he presented the document for registration, the 4^th respondent is not entertaining the sale deed for registration on the ground that the said land is shown as assigned land and is nontransferable/prohibited from transfer.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that as the assignment was on condition of paying the market value, and that too in the year 1952, when there was no prohibition of sale, there is no reason or justification for not registering the document on the ground that the land is assigned land. On the other hand, while admitting that the land was assigned in 1952, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents that the said land cannot be alienated.

¶18

This Court has considered the aforesaid issue in a number of cases and held that there is no legal sanction for prohibiting sale of lands assigned prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954. Only by virtue of revised assignment policy in G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.07.1958, again such condition is imposed. In any event, it is also to be noticed that the land in question is not the assigned land to landless poor persons, but it is an assignment made on payment of market value. In that view of the matter, it is almost like a sale on payment of market value, as such, it cannot be treated as assigned land for any purposes.

¶19

For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to respondent No.4, that in case the petitioner presents any document for sale of aforesaid land, the same shall be entertained and processed for registration, without raising any objection that the land is an assigned land, provided the document is otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908. No costs. As a sequel, WPMP.No.28043 of 2012 stands closed.

¶20

______________________ 30^th July 2012 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr

K. Murali Mohan, v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Murali Mohan, v. 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

S. Ravi Chandran, Vs South Central Railway

Budhala Sreedevi Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Mandavilli Ratna Manikyamba, Vs The District Registrar

Pulluru Srinivasulu, Vs The Sub Registrar of Assurances

V. Prem Sagar, Vs The State of Ap, rep the Station House Officer

Singhal Payal Vs The Regional Passport officer