Allowed

Kadirappagari Babayya v. The District Collector

Telangana HC7 Aug 2012WP/24204/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the 4th respondent's insistence on obtaining No Objection Certificates for land document registration. The court held the Registrar cannot demand such certificates except for specific restricted lands under Section 22-A.

What did the court decide?

Directed 4th respondent to receive and process petitioners' documents without insisting for No Objection Certificate from revenue authorities.

Kadirappagari Babayya Vs The District… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24204 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

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

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in insisting the petitioners to get ‘No Objection Certificate” from respondents 1 to 3 in respect of lands to an extent of Ac.3.92 cents and Ac.0.58 cents covered by Sy.Nos.213-1 and 214-1 respectively of Muluguru Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The grievance of the petitioners is that though the documents produced by them are in compliance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908, the 4^th respondent is insisting for “No Objection Certificate’ from respondents 1 to 3 without any authority of law and jurisdiction.

¶6

It is no doubt true that Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by A.P. State Legislation, prohibits registration of documents in respect of the lands mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-Section (1) thereof. Where, however, the lands do not fall into that category, the Registrar has no discretion except to admit the documents for registration ensuring compliance with the relevant provisions of law. It is only when a land is referable to any of the clauses mentioned above, that registration can be refused.

¶7

Under the scheme of the Registration Act, the registering authority cannot insist for submission of “No Objection Certificate”. That would be reading much into Section 22-A of the Act and expanding the prohibition contained therein. It is well established that any provision that imposes restrictions on the rights of citizens, must be construed strictly and the scope of any such provision cannot be expanded.

¶8

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4^th

¶9

respondent to receive and process the document that may be presented by the petitioners without insisting for submission of “No Objection Certificate” from the revenue authorities. If the documents pertain to the lands that are mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, he shall communicate the same to the parties concerned within one week from the date of presentation of the documents. No costs.

¶10

As a sequel, WPMP.No.30910 of 2012 stands closed.

¶11

________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶12

Date: 07.08.2012 ES

Kadirappagari Babayya v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadirappagari Babayya v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chamakoora Indraja Reddy, Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Veeraballi Krishna Reddy, Vs The District Collector

Padmamma Vs Principle Secretary Revenue( L.a)

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

Anna Janakamma Vs The Registrar

Katta Narsimhulu, Vs The Government of A.P.