Allowed

M.Satyanarayana Rao, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC24 Jul 2012WP/22326/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner challenged the SubRegistrar for insisting on a No Objection Certificate. The High Court held that such a requirement lacks legal authority and directed the register office to process documents without it.

What did the court decide?

Directing the third respondent to receive and process the document without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from revenue authorities.

M.Satyanarayana Rao, Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22326 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent – Joint SubRegistrar, Anantapur Rural, Anantapur District, in insisting the petitioner to get no objection certificate from respondents 1 and 2 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.04 cents covered by Survey No.116-2 of Kakkalapalli Village, Anantapur Rural Mandal of Anantapur District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has valid documents in compliance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908, the third respondent is insisting him to produce no objection certificate from respondents 1 and 2 without any authority of law and jurisdiction.

¶6

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

¶7

It is no doubt true that Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by A.P. State Legislation prohibits registration of documents in respect of the lands mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of SubSection (1) thereof. Where, however, the lands do not fall

¶8

into that category, the Registrar has no discretion except to admit the documents for registration ensuring compliance with the relevant provisions of law. It is only when a land is referable to any of the Clauses mentioned above, that registration can be refused.

¶9

Registering authority cannot insist on submission of “No Objection Certificate”. That would be reading much into Section 22-A of the Registration Act and expanding the prohibition contained therein. It is well established that any provision that imposes restrictions on the rights of the citizens must be construed strictly and the scope of any such provision cannot be expanded.

¶10

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to receive and process the document that may be presented by the petitioner for registration without insisting on submission of “No Objection Certificate” from the revenue authorities. If the documents pertain to the lands that are mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, he shall communicate the same to the parties concerned within one week from the date of presentation of such documents.

¶11

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.28624 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶12

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶13

24^th JULY, 2012.

¶14

kvni

M.Satyanarayana Rao, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Satyanarayana 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

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

Pedda Narasimhappa, S/o. Kavellappa Vs The District Collector

N.Kambagiri Ramudu Vs The District Collector

Annamalla Swapna Rani, Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited