Allowed

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

Telangana HC16 Oct 2012WP/32431/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a land transfer document without a revenue no objection certificate. The court directed the authority to process the registration while verifying compliance with the Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act.

What did the court decide?

Directing the fourth respondent to receive and process the document for registration without insisting on a no objection certificate from revenue authorities.

K.A. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. K. Anjina Reddy, Vs The… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32431 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the fourth respondent – SubRegistrar, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District, in not entertaining the document for registration in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.30 cents covered by Survey No.81-1A situated at Kirikera Village Polam, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District, and insisting the petitioners for production of no objection certificate from the revenue authorities, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioners that their vendor, by name, R.Habeeb Saab, is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in question. It is stated that he was also having pattadar passbook and title deed. It is the grievance of the petitioners that with a view to purchase the said land, they approached the fourth respondent for registration of a document but the fourth respondent is refusing to receive the same and insisting for production of no objection certificate from the revenue authorities.

¶6

Precisely, it is the case of the petitioners that in the absence of any provision for production of no objection

¶7

certificate from the revenue authorities and as the land in question is a private patta land, there is no reason or justification on the part of the fourth respondent in insisting for production of no objection certificate from the revenue authorities. In any event, under the Scheme of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules made there under, if any document is presented for registration, it is open for the registering authority to examine whether such document is prohibited for registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, but at the same time, he cannot insist for production of no objection certificate from the revenue authorities so as to entertain the same for registration.

¶8

In that view of the matter, in view of limited relief sought by the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to direct the fourth respondent that if the petitioners present any document with regard to transfer of the land in question, he shall receive and process the same for registration without insisting on submission of no objection certificate from the revenue authorities. It is made clear that it is open for the registering authority to verify whether such document is in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is also made clear that if there are any reasons exist for

¶9

refusal of registration of such document, this order will not preclude the registering authority from recording reasons and communicating the same to the petitioners, as contemplated under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶10

Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶11

______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶12

16^th OCTOBER, 2012.

¶13

kvni

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Mr. Yerramada Ashok Reddy Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Gogineni Vinaya Kumar, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Ahmed, Vs The Inspector General