Allowed

K.S. Sriramulu, v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC8 Aug 2012WP/23795/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench disposed of a writ petition where petitioners, land owners, challenged the refusal of the registering authority to accept documents without a No Objection Certificate. The court held that if lands do not fall under Section 22-A prohibitions, such insistence is illegal. The authority must receive the documents but can verify compliance with the Registration Act and Stamp Act

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent to receive the documents and process them for registration without insisting on a 'No Objection Certificate'.

K.S. Sriramulu, Vs The Joint Collector — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23795 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in insisting the petitioners to get ‘No Objection Certificate’ for registration of the lands admeasuring Ac.0.52 cents and Ac.0.57 cents in respective Sy.Nos.36/1A and 36/1C of Kakkalapally Village, Anantapur Rural Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioners that they are owners and possessors of the aforesaid lands having inherited the same from their father. It is also their case that originally the lands in the aforesaid survey numbers were assigned in favour of one K.Chinna Masood Saheb in the year 1929 and patta was also granted to him.

¶7

In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners that they intended to alienate the subject lands and approached the 4^th respondent for presentation of the documents for registration, but the same are not being entertained for registration and the 4^th respondent is insisting upon production of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the revenue authorities.

¶8

The petitioners state that subject lands were initially assigned in the year 1929 and there is no condition of non-alienation in the patta granted in favour of the original assignee, therefore, the 4^th respondent

¶9

has no authority to insist for production of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the competent authority.

¶10

It is no doubt true that where the lands do not fall under clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 22-A of the Registration Act as amended by A.P. Act 19 of 2007, the registering authority cannot insist on submission of ‘No Objection Certificate’. Such insistence would be reading much into Section 22-A of the Act and expanding the prohibition contained therein.

¶11

Under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, if any document is presented before the registering authority for registration, the same has to be accepted. However, if any objections are there for registration of the document, it is open to the registering authority to record the reasons for refusal, but it has no power or authority to refuse to receive the document itself.

¶12

For the aforesaid reasons, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 4^th respondent to receive the document that may be presented by the petitioners in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.0.52 cents and Ac.0.57 cents in respective Sy.Nos.36/1A and 36/1C of Kukkalapally Village, Anantapur Rural Mandal, Anantapur District, and process the same for registration without insisting on submission of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the revenue authorities. However, it is made clear that it is open to the registering authority to verify whether the documents presented by the petitioners are in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶13

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶14

In view of disposal of the writ petition, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶15

___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J

¶16

08.08.2012 v v

K.S. Sriramulu, v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S. Sriramulu, v. The Joint 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

Kadirappagari Babayya Vs The District Collector

Smt. a.Sujana, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Anna Janakamma Vs The Registrar

Khaja Mohiddin, Vs The District Registrar of Assurances

Shahanaz, Vs The Tahasildar

A.Anilkumar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh