Allowed

Pentakota Subramanyam. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Nov 2012WP/34824/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the Sub-Registrar's failure to register their land agreement over four years without any challenge to their title. The Court held there was no justification for the delay, ordered the document be processed within ten days, and quashed the inaction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Respondent No. 3 directed to process the document and complete necessary steps within ten days.

Pentakota Subramanyam. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.34824 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of various extents of land in Survey No.1562/2 of Anakapalli Town, Visakhapatnam District. They entered into an agreement with Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and presented it before the Sub-Registrar, respondent No.3 herein, for registration. It was assigned a pending number, being P-131/2008. Thereafter, respondent No.3 addressed a letter, dated 05.06.2008, to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, respondent No.2 herein, seeking confirmation of the pass books issued by the Tahsildar, Anakapalli. The grievance of the petitioners is that the document has not been released, though four years have elapsed.

¶5

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶6

In the process of verification, as to the genuinity of the title deed and pattadar pass book, relied upon by the petitioners, respondent No.3 spent more than four years. It was not as if any individual or an official of the Government complained that the petitioners are not the owners of the property. Further, the petitioners have placed before this Court, a copy of the certificate, dated 09.01.2007, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalli to the effect that the land in survey No.1562/2 is classified as ‘Zeroyithi wet-land’ and it is

¶7

not assigned or Government land.

¶8

There would have been some justification for respondent No.3 to entertain a doubt, had it been a case where the land was shown in the records as the one belonging to the Government in any manner. When the record does not disclose so, there was absolutely no justification for respondent No.3 in keeping the document pending for such a long time. Further, the pattadar pass books, issued under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, are to be taken on their face value.

¶9

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and respondent No.3 is directed to process the document, presented by the petitioners, and complete the necessary steps, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.

¶11

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶12

Dt.09.11.2012.

¶13

kdl

Pentakota Subramanyam. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pentakota Subramanyam. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Nekkalapudi Venkata Subba Rao Vs Veeramachaneni Venkata Subbamma

Singiri Deepthi Vs Katamreddy Malakonda Reddy

Aripineti Vijaya Bhaskar Vs Sk. Mazam Saheb

Pentakota Venkata Madhu Kiran Suri Appa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Engineering Projects India Limited, Vs The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Muvva Tagore Vs The District Collector,Nalgonda, Nalgonda District