Allowed

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

Telangana HC17 Oct 2012WP/32852/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged the 4th respondent's refusal to register land sale documents without a No Objection Certificate from Revenue authorities. The court directed the authority to receive and process the documents without insisting on the NOC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to present documents; 4th respondent directed to receive and process them without insisting for NOC from respondents 1 to 3.

Ugrappa, S/o Narasimhappa, Vs The District Collector… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32852 of 2012

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in refusing to register the documents presented by the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.1.20 cents covered by Survey No.323-2A situated at Modha Village, Parigi Mandal, Anantapur District, and insisting to produce ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the respondents 1 to 3 as illegal and arbitrary and, consequently, to direct the 4^th respondent to receive and process the documents without insisting for ‘No Objection Certificate (NOC)’ from the respondents 1 to 3.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the aforesaid land and he was also issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed. When he intended to alienate the aforesaid land and approached the 4^th respondent requesting to process the documents for registration, the 4^th respondent refused to receive the same and insisted for NOC from the Revenue authorities.

¶7

Except the allegation of the petitioner that the 4^th respondent is not accepting the documents for alienating the land, there is no endorsement issued by the 4^th respondent to that effect. Under the scheme of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, the Act) and the Rules made thereunder, if any document is presented for registration, it

¶8

is obligatory on the part of the Registering authority to receive and process the same for registration. If any reasons exist for refusal, it is open to the Registering authority to record such reasons as contained in Section 71 of the Act, and communicate the same to the person executing or claiming under such document. But, at the same time, there is no authority or jurisdiction either to refuse to receive the document for alienation, or to insist for NOC from the Revenue authorities, for the purpose of registration.

¶9

In the absence of any material to show that the 4^th respondent refused to receive the documents for registration,

¶10

I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to present the documents, in which event, the 4^th respondent shall receive and process the same for registration, without insisting for NOC from the Revenue authorities. However, it is made clear that if there is any objection for registration, it is open to the Registering authority to record reasons and communicate the same to the parties as contemplated under Section 71 of the Act, and it is also open for the Registering authority to verify whether the documents are in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶11

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶12

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17^th October, 2012 cbs

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.32852 of 2012

¶16

17^th October, 2012

¶17

cbs

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ugrappa, S/o Narasimhappa, 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

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

Smt. Koppolu Krishnamma, Vs The Sub-Registrar

Fariha Shahkar, Vs The Regional Passport Officer