Allowed

Khaja Mohiddin, v. The District Registrar of Assurances

Telangana HC8 Aug 2012WP/23903/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition quashing orders refusing to register documents due to claims of Wakf ownership. Relying on a prior judgment declaring the land non-Wakf property, the court directed the authorities to process the registration.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned refusal endorsement and appeal order; direction to not treat the land as Wakf property and to process the document for registration.

Khaja Mohiddin, Vs The District Registrar of Assurances — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23903 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in refusing to register the documents presented by the petitioner and others pertaining to the land to an extent of Ac.1.98 cents covered by Sy.No.613 of Moolasagaram Village, Nandyal, Kurnool District, as illegal and arbitrary, and to quash the endorsement of Refusal No.1 of 2012 dated 02.04.2012 of the Sub-Registrar, Nandyal, and order dated 16.07.2012 in Appeal No.1 of 2012 passed by the 1^st respondentDistrict Registrar of Assurances, Nandyal.

¶5

In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the grandfather of the petitioner has purchased the land admeasuring Ac.5.24 cents in Sy.No.613 of Moolasagaram village, Nandyal, Kurnool District, from one Kasim Baig under registered sale deed dated 13.05.1950. Subsequently, the said land was sub-divided. It is the case of the petitioner that a part of the said land was acquired for public purpose and the remaining land admeasuring Ac.1.98 cents covered by Sy.No.613/1B2B continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner was also issued pattadar passbook and title deed for the said land.

¶6

In this writ petition, the petitioner averred that when he intended to transfer the land in his possession and approached the registering authority, the registering authority refused to register the document vide Refusal No.1 of 2012 dated 02.04.2012 stating that the land belongs to Wakf Board. As against the said refusal endorsement, the petitioner carried the matter in Appeal No.1 of 2012 before the District Registrar of Assurances, Nandyal, as per Section 72 of the Registration Act. By order dated 16.07.2012, the appeal was dismissed mainly on the ground that

¶7

the Sub-Registrar, Nandyal, is not the party respondent in W.P.No.22825 of 2005.

¶8

The petitioner contends that on earlier occasion, when the subject land was treated as the land belonging to the Wakf Board, he filed W.P.No.22825 of 2005 and the same was allowed directing the Wakf Board not to treat the land as wakf property on the basis of the Gazette notification dated 24.05.1963 in the light of the final and binding findings in A.S.No.152 of 1968 on the file of the District Judge, Kurnool. The grievance of the petitioner is that when W.P.No.22825 of 2005 filed by him has become final, the registering authority cannot refuse registration, but it again refused to register the land on the very same ground that the property belongs to the Wakf Board.

¶9

When the matter has come up on earlier occasion, it was adjourned to enable the Government Pleader to obtain instructions.

¶10

On instructions, learned Government Pleader admitted that W.P.No.22825 of 2005, which was filed by the petitioner on earlier occasion, was allowed directing not to treat the land as wakf property, but in the case on hand, the impugned endorsement is made based on the list furnished by the Wakf Board. He further submitted that as much as the property claimed by the petitioner is included in the list of the properties sent by the Wakf Board, there is no illegality on the part of the SubRegistrar in issuing the impugned endorsement and the 1^st respondent in passing the order dated 16.07.2012 in Appeal No.1 of 2012.

¶11

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed in W.P.No.22825 of 2005 and the impugned orders.

¶12

A perusal of the order, dated 20.08.2011, passed in W.P.No.22825 of 2005 clearly shows that the Wakf Board claimed the property pursuant

¶13

to the entry notified in A.P.Gazette, Part-II, dated 24.05.1963. While considering the said plea, this Court in the said W.P.No.22825 of 2005 held that the land in occupation of the petitioner is not the property of the Wakf Board and allowed the writ petition directing the Wakf Board not to treat the land as wakf property. When this Court has already held that the land owned by the petitioner is no more the wakf property, it is not open to the registering authority to refuse registration on the very same ground that the land belongs to the wakf property. Even the 1^st respondent has not considered the appeal in proper perspective and rejected the appeal mainly on the ground that the Sub-Registrar is not made party respondent in W.P.No.22825 of 2005. At that point of time, there was no need to make the Sub-Registrar as a party respondent in the writ petition. When once it was held that the subject land is not belonging to the Wakf Board, it is not open to the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration again on the very same ground.

¶14

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 02.04.2012 in Refusal No.1 of 2012 of the Sub-Registrar, Nandyal, and the order dated 16.07.2012 in Appeal No.1 of 2012 passed by the 1^st respondent are hereby quashed, and the registering authority is directed not to treat the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.1.98 cents covered by Sy.No.613 of Moolasagaram village, Nandyal, Kurnool District, as wakf property, and process the document presented by the petitioner for registration in respect of the said property, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the directions indicated above. No order as to costs.

¶16

As a sequel, WPMP.No.30527 of 2012 filed for interim relief is disposed of.

¶17

R.SUBHASH REDDY,J

¶18

08.08.2012 Note: Issue CC in one week B/o. v v

Khaja Mohiddin, v. The District Registrar of Assurances

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaja Mohiddin, v. The District Registrar of Assurances

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Shahanaz, Vs The Tahasildar

K.S. Sriramulu, Vs The Joint Collector

A.Anilkumar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh