Allowed

Shahanaz, v. The Tahasildar

Telangana HC8 Aug 2012WP/24532/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declared the classification of land as Government property illegal based on a prior judgment in WP No.30735 of 2010. It directed the Sub-Registrar to accept and process registration documents for the petitioners while ensuring compliance with relevant Acts.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to receive and register the petitioners' documents for the specified land extent, treating it as private property, subject to statutory compliance.

Shahanaz, Vs The Tahasildar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24532 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking declaration by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in classifying the entire land to an extent of Ac.6.12 cents in Sy.No.137 of Chittoor Village, Chittoor District as Government poramboke land, as illegal and arbitrary, and a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to delete the said land from the list of Government Poramboke lands and entertain the documents in respect of the petitioners’ land admeasuring Ac.1.61 cents, out of total extent of land to an extent of Ac.6.12 cents, for registration.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioners that their father by name Syed Haroon was the owner and possessor of the aforesaid entire extent of land. It is their grievance that out of the said entire extent of land, the land to an extent of Ac.1.61 cents was gifted to them and when they intended to transfer the said gifted land to third parties and approached the 3^rd respondent for registration, the 3^rd respondent is refusing to receive the document on the ground that the land belongs to the Government.

¶6

Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that when the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 of the very same subject survey number was refused for registration by the registering authority, the proposed purchaser filed W.P.No.30735 of 2010 before this Court, wherein it was held that the action of the respondents therein in treating the land as belonging to Government cannot be upheld and,

¶7

accordingly, allowed the said writ petition directing respondent No.3 to receive and register the documents that may be presented by the petitioner therein and his proposed vendor subject to compliance of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶8

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submitted that the land sought to be sold by the petitioners is a part of the total extent of Ac.6.12 cents in Sy.No.137 of Chittoor Village, Chittoor District, which stood in the name of the father of the petitioners.

¶9

From a perusal of the order dated 08.12.2010 passed in W.P.No.30735 of 2010, a copy of which is filed in the material papers, it is clear that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed in W.P.No.30735 of 2010

¶10

In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the parties, following the order dated 08.12.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.30735 of 2010 and for the reasons recorded therein, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in treating the subject land as Government land as illegal and arbitrary, and the 3^rd respondent is directed to receive the document to be presented by the petitioners in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.1.61 cents comprised in Sy.No. 137 of Chittoor Village, Chittoor District, and process the same for registration without treating the land as belonging to the Government. However, it is made clear that the 3^rd respondent shall verify whether the document is in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶11

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions indicated above.

¶12

In view of disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.31300 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶13

___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J

¶14

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

Shahanaz, v. The Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahanaz, v. The Tahasildar

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

K.S. Sriramulu, Vs The Joint Collector

A.Anilkumar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh