Allowed

N.Kambagiri Ramudu v. The District Collector

Telangana HC24 Jul 2012WP/22444/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging the Sub-Registrar's demand for a No Objection Certificate for land registration. The Court held that the Registrar has no discretion to insist on such certificates beyond provisions under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent was directed to receive and process the petitioners document without insisting on a No Objection Certificate.

N.Kambagiri Ramudu Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22444 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent – SubRegistrar, Pamidi, Anantapur District, in insisting the petitioner to get no objection certificate from respondents 1 and 2 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.64 cents covered by Survey No.270-A of Pamidi Village and Mandal, 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 on 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 appearing for the respondents.

¶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.28764 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶12

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶13

24^th JULY, 2012.

¶14

kvni

N.Kambagiri Ramudu v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Kambagiri Ramudu 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

Annamalla Swapna Rani, Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

M.Satyanarayana Rao, Vs The District Collector