Allowed

T.Narayanamma v. The Government of A.P

Telangana HC6 Aug 2012WP/24005/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the refusal to entertain a document for registration, the court directed the registering authority to process the document without insisting on a No Objection Certificate since the land was assigned before the 1954 prohibition on alienation.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 3rd respondent to entertain, receive and process the document for registration without treating the land as assigned and without insisting for a No Objection Certificate.

T.Narayanamma Vs The Government of A.P — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24005 of 2012

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in not entertaining the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2.05 cents in Sy.No.258-B situated at Chukkalaru Village, Tadipatri mandal, Anantapur District, for registration, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to register the same.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that originally the aforesaid land was an assigned land assigned to Sri Mala Obigadu by proceedings, dated 31.12.1926. It is further stated that the petitioner has succeeded to the said property as legal heir of the original assignee and that when he intends to sell the said property in favour of the third parties and approached the 3^rd respondent for registration, the 3^rd respondent is not receiving the document on the ground that the land is assigned land and insisting to obtain “No Objection Certificate” from respondents 1 and 2. It is also stated that when he applied for No Objection Certificate, the Tahsildar, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapur District, has sent a report to the District Collector, Anantapur, stating that the land was originally assigned in favour of Mala Obigadu on 31.12.1926. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the same, the respondents are not issuing No Objection Certificate and not entertaining the document for registration.

¶7

From a perusal of the report of the Tahsildar, it is clear that the land admeasuring Ac.2.05 cents was originally assigned in favour of Mala Obigadu on 31.12.1926 vide DAR Dis.No.5/1335. It is well settled by a number of judgments of this Court that prohibition for alienation of the assigned lands came into force in the year 1954 in

¶8

terms of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954. In that view of the matter, as it is evident from the report of the Tahsildar that originally the land was assigned in favour of Mala Obigadu on 31.12.1926, there cannot be any impediment to prohibit registration. Further, there is also no provision under the Registration Act, 1908 to insist for submission of No Objection Certificate from respondents 1 and 2.

¶9

For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that if any document is presented for registration, the 3^rd respondent is directed to entertain, receive and process the same for registration without treating the said land as assigned land and without insisting for No Objection Certificate. However, it is made clear that it is open to the registering authority to verify the document in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908.

¶10

As a sequel, WPMP.No.30676 of 2012 stands closed.

¶11

________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J Date: 06.08.2012. ES

T.Narayanamma v. The Government of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Narayanamma v. The Government of A.P

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

M.Obi Reddy, Vs .The District Collector, Anantapur.

Sona Singh Vs The District Collector

Hajeera Begum Vs The Branch Manager

Chamakoora Indraja Reddy, Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Veeraballi Krishna Reddy, Vs The District Collector

Padmamma Vs Principle Secretary Revenue( L.a)