Allowed

K. Subba Rao, S/o. K. Nagappa v. The District Collector, Kurnool.

Telangana HC29 Oct 2012WP/27719/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging the refusal to register a sale deed. The petitioner claimed ownership based on registered sale deeds and a final civil court judgment dismissing the Wakf Board's title. The court quashed the administrative letters that refused registration, directing the authority to process the document subject to standard verification under the Registration Act and

What did the court decide?

Letters dated 17.01.2012 and 16.03.2012 refusing registration were quashed. Respondents directed to process the petitioner's document for registration.

K. Subba Rao, S/o. K. Nagappa Vs The District… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27719 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 29.10.2012

Between:

K. Subba Rao.

…..Petitioner

And

The District Collector, Kurnool & others.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.27719 of 2012

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

This writ petition is filed, questioning the letter, dated 17^th January 2012, issued by the 1^st respondent-District Collector, Kurnool in R.Dis.No.(E2)/2845/10, and the consequential refusal order dated 16^th March 2012, issued by the 3^rd respondent/Sub-Registrar, in Letter No.SRO Kallur/43/2012.

¶14

Petitioner claims that he is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.5.58 cents, covered by Sy.No.359, situated at Kallur village of Kurnool District. It is stated that the said land is a private zeroithi land and there are registered sale transactions with regard to said land from 1987 onwards and the petitioner has purchased the said land through four registered sale deeds, dated 01.12.2005, 29.12.2005, 06.01.2006 and 12.01.2006 respectively, from its earlier owners, and after his purchase, his name is also mutated in all the revenue records, showing him as owner and possessor of the aforesaid land.

¶15

When the petitioner intended to sell the said land and approached the respondents, based on the letter dated 17.01.2012, issued by the District Collector, Kurnool in Letter R.Dis.No.(E2)/ 2845/10, the 3^rd respondent/SubRegistrar has issued the letter dated 16.03.2012, in Letter No.SRO Kallur/43/2012, refusing registration on the ground that the said land belongs to Wakf Board and is not transferable.

¶16

Petitioner has filed a copy of the judgment in O.S.No.39 of 1969, dated 24.02.1970, passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool. The A.P. Wakf Board has filed the aforesaid suit, claiming title and possession with regard to several lands including the land covered by Sy.No.359 of Kallur village. The said suit is dismissed and it is stated that the said judgment has become final. A perusal of the said judgment makes it clear that the claim made by the Wakf Board for possession over the suit schedule property including the land, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, is rejected by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the registered sale deeds, by which, he has purchased the land. When there are registered documents evidencing transfer of land for the last several years, and more so, in the light of the judgment of a Civil Court which has become final, respondents cannot refuse to register the document presented by the petitioner on the ground that

¶17

the said land belongs to Wakf Board. Even the letter issued by the District Collector also cannot be sustained in view of the adjudication made by civil Court in the aforesaid suit.

¶18

For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed, and the letter issued by the 1^st respondentDistrict Collector in R.Dis.No.(E2)/2845/10, dated 17.01.2012, addressed to the 3^rd respondent, is hereby quashed to the extent of petitioner’s land, and the consequential refusal order dated 16^th March 2012, issued by the 3^rd respondent/Sub-Registrar in Letter No.SRO Kallur/43/2012, is also quashed. There shall be a further direction to the respondents to process the document presented by the petitioner for registration. It is open to the registering authority to verify whether the document is in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908.

¶19

Writ petition is allowed with the directions as indicated above. No costs.

¶20

As a sequel, WPMP.No.35302 of 2012 stands closed.

¶21

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29^th October 2012 ajr

K. Subba Rao, S/o. K. Nagappa v. The District Collector, Kurnool.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Subba Rao, S/o. K. Nagappa v. The District Collector, Kurnool.

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

Uppala Sanjeevakka, Vs The District Collector

Yekkanti Snehalatha, Vs The District Registrar

Shankar Prjval Vs The District Collector

A.Krishna Kumar, S/o. a. Gopalaiah Vs The Government of A.P.

Sri E.D. Nathan, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.Sudhakar Naidu, Vs The District Collector