Allowed

Ravaluru Subramanyam v. The District Collector and Magistrate

Telangana HC16 Feb 2012WP/23127/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal to register documents on classified 'Assessed Waste' land. Relying on an identical prior judgment, the court directed the respondent to receive documents for registration.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.3 to receive the petitioner's documents and process the same for registration in accordance with law.

Ravaluru Subramanyam Vs The District Collector and… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.23127 OF 2011

¶7

Between: Ravaluru Subramanyam. - - - Petitioner. AND The District Collector and Magistrate, Kadapa District and two others. - - - Respondents.

¶8

This Court made the following :

¶9

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.23127 OF 2011

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in refusing to register the documents presented by the petitioner in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.130-3, 131-2, 1321, 132-2, 134 and 135-2 on the basis of the second respondent’s letter dated 09-09-2008, wherein it was stated that the said lands are classified as ‘Assessed Waste’ is arbitrary and illegal.

¶13

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶14

At the out set, it is to be noticed that in identical circumstances, this Court disposed of Writ Petition No.6497 of 2011 with directions as under :

¶15

“Following the reasons contained in the said order of this Court, I am of the opinion that the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to register the documents presented by the petitioners purporting to rely upon letter dated 09-092008 of the Tahsildar, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District, cannot be sustained. Respondent No.3 is directed to receive the documents and process the same for registration, in accordance with law. Respondents 1 and 2 are however free to assert their title in appropriate Court of law as registration of the documents by itself would not confer title on the purchasers”

¶16

As could be seen, the petitioners in the said writ petition were also aggrieved by the action of the respondents in refusing to register the documents on the basis of very same letter dated 09-09-2008 of the Tahsildar, Proddatur Mandal. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents has not disputed the fact that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order in W.P. No.6497 of 2011.

¶17

Accordingly following the order in Writ Petition No.6497 of 2011, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to receive the documents presented by the petitioner and process the same for registration, in accordance with law. However, this shall not preclude the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to assert their title in appropriate Court of law.

¶18

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Justice G. Rohini

¶20

Date: 16-02-2012. Dsh.

¶21

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶22

130

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.23127 OF 2011

¶24

February 16, 2012

¶25

DSH

Ravaluru Subramanyam v. The District Collector and Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravaluru Subramanyam v. The District Collector and Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Shoukath Ali Vs The District Collector

Obula Reddygari Reddeppa Reddy, Vs The District Collector

B. Ramakrishna Reddy S/o B. Chenna Reddy Vs The Commissioner/ Director Collegiate Education

Gundla Uma Maheswara Reddy Vs Sri a.K.Singhal, Ias.

Ubbarapu Suybbarayudu Vs The Joint Collector, Office of the District Collector

Sri Jeedula Santosh Kumar Vs The Government of A.P.