Allowed

A.Anilkumar Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Aug 2012WP/24514/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition petition challenging the refusal of a Sub-Registrar to register sale documents for lands previously assigned under the AP Assigned Lands Act. The Court held that lands purchased via auction execution of a cooperative bank award are no longer considered assigned lands, mandating registration under the Registration Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to register the sale documents without reference to the original assignment status of the lands.

A.Anilkumar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24514 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent – Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Rajampet, Kadapa District, in refusing to entertain the documents with regard to sale of lands admeasuring 2.46 cents and Ac.2.40 cents in respective Sy.Nos.1074/3 and 1075/2 of Akepadu village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that originally the land admeasuring 2.46 cents in Sy.No.1074/3 of Akepadu Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District, was assigned in favour of one Smt.B.C.Narasamma and the land admeasuring Ac.2.40 cents in Sy.No.1075/2 of the same Village, Mandal and District, was assigned in favour of one Smt. B.Pedda Narasamma. It is stated that both the assignees referred to above obtained loan from the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Rajampet Branch, by mortgaging the said lands and when the loan amounts were not repaid, the Central Bank, which is a society under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), by obtaining award, brought the said lands for sale and the petitioner has purchased the same in the auction conducted in execution of awards passed under the provisions of the Act against the original assignees. It is also stated that aforesaid sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner and sale certificates were also issued.

¶6

In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that as he wanted to sell the aforesaid lands, he approached the third respondent

¶7

for presentation of documents for registration, but the same are not being received by the third respondent on the ground that originally the said lands were assigned.

¶8

The said issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, for which, I am a Member, in the case of SUB REGISTRAR, SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AND ANOTHER v. K.GURAVAIAH AND ANOTHER^[1] . In the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court while interpreting the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 and Explanation to Section 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1997, held that if the assigned lands are purchased by the third parties in execution of award by the Cooperative Central Bank, they lost the characteristics of assigned land and the SubRegistrar cannot refuse to register the documents presented for transfer of title on the ground that the said lands were assigned ones. Even the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents states that subject matter of this writ petition is covered in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in K.GURAVAIAH’s case (1 supra).

¶9

Following the judgment referred to above, as it is stated that the petitioner purchased the lands in question in the auction conducted in execution of the awards passed under the provisions of the Act, I allow this writ petition with the direction that if the documents for sale are presented by the petitioner for registration, the registering authority shall receive and process the same for registration without reference to the ground that the said lands were originally assigned. It is made clear that it is open to the third respondent to scrutinize such

¶10

documents in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act, 1908. No order as to costs.

¶11

In view of disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.31282 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶12

___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J 08.08.2012 v v

¶13

[1] 2009(2) ALD 250 (DB)

A.Anilkumar Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Anilkumar Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Khaja Mohiddin, Vs The District Registrar of Assurances

Shahanaz, Vs The Tahasildar

K.S. Sriramulu, Vs The Joint Collector