Allowed

Shankar Prjval v. The District Collector

Telangana HC19 Oct 2012WP/33245/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the requirement of a no objection certificate for land registration. The court held that the registering authority cannot insist on such certificates under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, and directed the authority to process the document if it complies with the Stamp and Registration Acts.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 4th respondent to accept and process the registration document without insisting for a no objection certificate from respondents 1 to 3.

Shankar Prjval Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.33245 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 19.10.2012

Between:

Shankar Prjval.

…..Petitioner

And

The District Collector, Anantapur & others.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.33245 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 document for purchase of land admeasuring Ac.2.12 cents in Sy.No.286-5 and Ac.0.67 cents in Sy.No.286-1, totally admeasuring Ac.2.79 cents, situated at Gowdanahalli village polam of Madakasira 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 when he intended to purchase the aforesaid lands from the actual owners and possessors and presented the document for registration, the 4^th respondent is insisting for ‘no objection certificate’ from respondents 1 to 3. It is stated that there is no power, authority or jurisdiction to the 4^th respondent to insist for ‘no objection certificate’ for entertaining the document for registration.

¶15

Though it is the case of petitioner that he presented

¶16

the document for registration, as no proof is filed to show that he actually presented the document, 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 document for registration, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing that if any document is presented by the petitioner for purchase of aforesaid land, the 4^th respondent is directed to accept the said document and process the same for registration without insisting for ‘no objection certificate’ from respondents 1 to 3, if such document is otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908. However, if there are any reasons for refusing registration, the registering authority shall record such reasons and communicate the same to the

¶18

petitioner, as contemplated under Section 71 of the Act.

¶19

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, WPMP.No.42312 of 2012 stands closed.

¶20

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 19^th October 2012 ajr

Shankar Prjval v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Prjval 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

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

Uppala Sanjeevakka, Vs The District Collector

Yekkanti Snehalatha, Vs The District Registrar

Yekkanti Vijaya Sekhar Reddy, Vs The District Registrar