Allowed

Narasamma, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC15 Oct 2012WP/32226/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court declared it illegal and arbitrary for the SubRegistrar to insist on a No Objection Certificate for land registration. The judgment directed the authority to process documents without such a certificate, reserving the right to check if the land falls under Section 22-A prohibitions.

What did the court decide?

The fourth respondent was directed to receive and process documents without insisting on a No Objection Certificate and to communicate if the land falls under Section 22-A prohibitions.

Narasamma, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32226 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the fourth respondent – SubRegistrar, Hindupur, Anantapur District, in insisting the petitioners to get no objection certificate from respondents 1 to 3 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2.40 cents each covered by Survey No.239-1 of Kirikera Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they have valid documents in compliance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908, the fourth respondent is insisting on them to produce no objection certificate from respondents 1 to 3 without any authority of law and jurisdiction.

¶6

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

¶7

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 SubSection (1) thereof. Where, however, the lands do not fall

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to receive and process the documents that may be presented by the petitioners for registration without insisting on 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 such documents. No order as to costs.

¶11

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶12

15^th OCTOBER, 2012.

¶13

kvni

Narasamma, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narasamma, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bontha Rajitha Rao (presently called as Puskur Rajitha Rao) Vs The Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs

Gopisetti Rajya Lakshmi, W/o. Nagastayaprakash Vs The Sub Registrar

S uresh Babu Vs The Government of A.P rep by its Secretary Irrigation and

Sunny Vs Regional Passport Office

D.Nizam Ali Khan, S/o. D. Rasool Khan Vs The Joint Sub-Registrar-I

P.Sharmila Banu W/o Anif Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Limited