Allowed

Smt. Vuddagiri Kamala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the District Collect

Telangana HC26 Nov 2012WP/23634/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Revenue Officer to register sale deeds despite the petitioner's claim that the property was Government land. It held that the Officer cannot refuse registration based on prohibited lists when undisputed evidence shows a prior court auction sale and registered deed prior to such classification.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to receive and register the sale deeds subject to compliance with the Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act.

Smt. Vuddagiri Kamala Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.23634 of 2012

¶2

Dated 2 6 th November, 2012

¶3

Between:

¶4

Smt.Vuddagiri Kamala and others

¶5

…Petitioners

¶6

and

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the District Collector, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Subrahmanyam

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: Ms.D.Madhavi

¶11

for Smt.Shanthi Neelam

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to receive and register the documents sought to be presented by the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

It is the pleaded case of the petitioners which is not denied by the respondents that the property bearing Door No.30-1-2(1) of Jeypore Ramabhadrapuram Road, Salur Village, Srikakulam District was originally purchased by the LIC in the Court auction in O.S.No.14 of 1995 by a registered deed, dated 25.02.1971. The LIC sold the said property to the husband of petitioner No.1. After his death, the petitioners, who are his legal heirs, have succeeded to the property. When the petitioners approached respondent No.3 for registration of the sale deeds, he has made an endorsement, dated 30.06.2012, refusing to register same on the sole ground that he has received a list

¶16

of Government lands and assigned lands from the revenue officials according to which the property in question is classified as poramboke and belonging to Venugopalaswamy temple.

¶17

The fact that the property was sold in Court auction prior to 1971 is not disputed by any of the parties. The purchase of the property by the husband of petitioner No.1 under sale deed executed in the year 1971 is also not disputed. In the face of this documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that inclusion of the land in the prohibited list of Government lands does not constitute legal basis for respondent No.3 to refuse registration.

¶18

At the hearing, it is submitted that the property is vested with respondent No.4-Municipality. If that be so, respondent No.4 is entitled to sue the petitioners for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property. The respondents cannot object to registration of the sale deeds without getting their right declared by a competent Court of law. Accordingly, respondent No.3 is directed to receive and register the sale deeds that may be presented by the petitioners subject to the latter complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly allowed subject to the observations made hereinabove.

¶20

As sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.30181 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26^th November, 2012 VGB

Smt. Vuddagiri Kamala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the District Collect

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vuddagiri Kamala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the District Collect

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

Mohd. Ismail, Vs M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

D.Venkata Gopi Krishna, Vs The Sub Registrar

Gandikota Subbamma, Vs The District Collector

Smt. Anakapalli Vijayalaxmi, Vs The District Collector

Oduru Dinamani, W/o Bikshulu Reddy, Vs The District Collector (Land Acquisition)

Smt. Reddi Narasamma, W/o. Papa Rao Aged about 45 Vs The Chief Engineer