Allowed

Smt. Koppolu Krishnamma, v. The Sub-Registrar

Telangana HC17 Oct 2012WP/32050/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a mandate directing the Tahsildar to register an agreement of sale for land held by petitioners as Government land in revenue records represented as patta land by public records. The authority was told to verify the document under relevant Acts but register it unless valid reasons for refusal existed. No mention of costs. Dismissal of miscellaneous petitions filed with the wr

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to register agreement of sale dated 24.03.2012 without treating land as Government land, while retaining power to record refusal reasons under Section 71 of Registration Ac

Smt. Koppolu Krishnamma, Vs The Sub-Registrar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32050 of 2012

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

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

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 1^st respondent in issuing the endorsement, dated 15.09.2012, refusing to register the agreement of sale, dated 24.03.2012, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners and possessors of Ac.1.00 each, totalling Acs.3.00, covered by Survey No.71/B-2 of Chinnamachupalli Village of Kadapa Town and District. It is stated that due to family necessities, the petitioners have agreed to sell the land and entered into an agreement of sale with a third party and when they approached the 1^st respondent for registration of the agreement of sale, the 1^st respondent refused to register the document on the ground that the land is classified as the Government land as per the dots in the Re-survey and

¶7

Re-settlement Register and made an endorsement to that effect on 15.09.2012.

¶8

The grievance of the petitioners is that though they are the owners and possessors of the land and they were also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds and all the revenue records would show that they are in continuous possession of the land, the 1^st respondent refused to register the agreement of sale on the ground that the land is classified as the Government land based on the dots in the Re-survey and Re-settlement Register.

¶9

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, based on the written instructions obtained from the Tahsildar, Chennur Mandal,

¶10

Kadapa District issued in Ref.No.B/2012, dated 17.10.2012, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the land is noted as the Government land based on the dots shown in the Re-survey and Re-settlement Register and it is not assigned to anybody.

¶11

This Court in number of cases has held that based on the indication of dots against the column ‘Name of the Khatadar/Pattadar’ in Re-survey and Re-settlement Register, the nature of the land cannot be changed. The abundant material placed on record by the petitioners before the Court would show that the land is patta land and it is in their possession and they were also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds for the land in question, as such, there is no reason for the 1^st respondent to issue the impugned endorsement.

¶12

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the 1^st respondent that in case the petitioners present any document for registration of the agreement of sale, dated 24.03.2012, with regard to transfer of the land in question, the same shall be received and processed for registration without treating the land as Government land or assigned land based on the dots shown in the Resurvey and Re-settlement Register. However, it is made clear that if any valid reasons exist for refusal of registration, this order will not preclude the registering authority to record reasons as contemplated under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 and communicate the same to the petitioners. It is open to the registering authority to verify whether the document is in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. No order as to costs.

¶13

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed along with the writ petition shall stand disposed of.

¶14

________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶15

17^th October, 2012 cbs

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.32050 of 2012

¶18

17^th October, 2012

¶19

cbs

Smt. Koppolu Krishnamma, v. The Sub-Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Koppolu Krishnamma, v. The Sub-Registrar

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

Mr. Yerramada Ashok Reddy Vs The Inspector General of Registration

K.A. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. K. Anjina Reddy, Vs The District Collector, Anantapur.

Gogineni Vinaya Kumar, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Harijana Narasimhappa , Kuntappa Vs The District Collector, Anantapur,Anantapur District

Ugrappa, S/o Narasimhappa, Vs The District Collector, Anantapur.

Fariha Shahkar, Vs The Regional Passport Officer