Allowed

Uppala Sanjeevakka, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC19 Oct 2012WP/32613/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declared the refusal to register a sale deed illegal and arbitrary where the land was assigned prior to the 1954 embargo on alienation. It directed the respondent to accept and process the document, reserving the right to verify formal compliance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the fourth respondent to receive and process the document for transfer of the land without refusing it solely because the land was originally assi

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

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.32613 OF 2012

¶3

DATED:19-10-2012

¶4

Between: Uppara Sanjeevakka … Petitioner And The District Collector, Anantapur and others … Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.32613 OF 2012

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

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

¶9

This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the fourth respondent in not entertaining the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents covered by Sy. No.9-2C, situated at Thummaganipalli Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Anantapur District, for registration, on the ground that the said land is an assigned land, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the fourth respondent to process the document presented by the petitioner for transfer of the aforesaid land. It is the case of the petitioner that originally the aforesaid land was assigned in favour of one Thummalakunta Babanna, vide proceedings in DAR Dis. No.40/1945, dt.17.10.1935, and subsequently the original assignee had sold the land to the petitioner, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.628/1971 and the petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of the land. The grievance of the petitioner is that when she approached the fourth respondent for transfer of the aforesaid land, he refused to receive the document on the ground that the said land is an assigned land.

¶10

Based on the written instructions dt.17.10.2012 obtained from the third respondent – Tahsildar, Lepakshi, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents that the land to an extent of Ac.0-75 cents in Sy. No.9-2C

¶11

situated at Kondur Village, Lepakshi Mandal, was assigned to one Babanna, vide proceedings in DAR. Dis. No.10/45, dt.4.7.1937.

¶12

In this case, it is not in dispute that the land in question was originally assigned to one Babanna on 4.7.1937, and subsequently said Babanna sold the land to the petitioner, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.628/1971, and thus she became owner and possessor of the land.

¶13

It is to be noticed that prohibition of alienation of assigned lands came into force by way of executive orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.1142, dt.18.6.1954 and prior to that there was no legal embargo for alienation of the assigned lands.

¶14

As it is not in dispute that the land in question was assigned in 1937, the fourth respondent cannot refuse to accept the document presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that originally the land was an assigned land.

¶15

For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the fourth respondent to receive the document that may be presented by the petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.9-2C, situated at Thummaganipalli Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Anantapur District, and process the same for registration without refusing it on the ground that originally the land was an assigned land. It is made clear that 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. It is also made clear that if there are any other reasons for refusal of registration, this order will not preclude the registering authority to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of with the directions as indicated above. No order as to costs.

¶17

In view of disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.41535 of

¶18

2012 also stands disposed of.

¶19

_____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 19.10.2012 bnr

Uppala Sanjeevakka, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uppala Sanjeevakka, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Vs The Assistant Labour Officer

G.Ramalingeswara Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh (Panchyat Raj Department)

G. Narayana, Vs The Personnel Officer

Yekkanti Snehalatha, Vs The District Registrar

Shankar Prjval Vs The District Collector

Yekkanti Vijaya Sekhar Reddy, Vs The District Registrar