Allowed

Harijana Narasimhappa , Kuntappa v. The District Collector, Anantapur,Anantapur District

Telangana HC17 Oct 2012WP/32916/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged the registrar's insistence on a 'no objection certificate' from other government officials for processing land sale documents. The court held that the registrar has no authority to demand such a certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 4th respondent to accept documents for land sale and process them for registration without insisting for a 'no objection certificate' from respondents 1 to 3.

Harijana Narasimhappa , Kuntappa Vs The District… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32916 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 17.10.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Harijana Narasimhappa @ Kuntappa.

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The District Collector, Anantapur & others.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.32916 of 2012

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.4 in not entertaining the documents presented by the petitioner for sale of land admeasuring Ac.1.20 cents, owned by him, covered by Sy.No. 224-1A, situated at Kirikera village of Hindupur Mandal in Anantapur District, and in insisting for ‘no objection certificate’ from respondents 1 to 3, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶14

It is the case of petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the aforesaid land and that when he intended to sell the said land to third parties, the 4^th respondent is insisting for ‘no objection certificate’ from respondents 1 to 3. It is the case of petitioner that there is no power, authority or jurisdiction to the 4^th respondent to insist for ‘no objection certificate’ for entertaining the documents for registration.

¶15

Though it is the case of petitioner that he presented the documents for registration, as no proof is filed to show

¶16

that he presented the documents, no finding need be recorded on the claim of petitioner, at this stage. Under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, the 4^th respondent has no authority to insist the petitioner to produce ‘no objection certificate’ from respondents 1 to 3. When any document is presented for registration, it is obligatory on the part of registering authority to receive and process it for registration, provided such document is in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act. At the same time, if there are any reasons for refusing registration, the registering authority shall record such reasons and communicate the same to the petitioner, as contemplated under Section 71 of the Act.

¶17

As much as the petitioner has not filed any proof of filing the documents for registration, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing that if any documents are presented by the petitioner for sale of aforesaid land, the 4^th respondent is directed to accept the said documents and process the same for registration without insisting for ‘no objection certificate’ from respondents 1 to 3, if such documents are otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908. No costs.

¶18

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17^th October 2012 ajr

Harijana Narasimhappa , Kuntappa v. The District Collector, Anantapur,Anantapur District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harijana Narasimhappa , Kuntappa v. The District Collector, Anantapur,Anantapur District

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

Smt. Koppolu Krishnamma, Vs The Sub-Registrar

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

Fariha Shahkar, Vs The Regional Passport Officer