Allowed

Kakarla Ramalakshumaiah, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC29 Apr 2013WP/11571/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that entries of 'dots' in the Re-Survey Register do not establish Government title. The prohibition on registering the petitioners' sale deed was illegal. The Sub-Registrar was directed to process the document.

What did the court decide?

Refusal Order No.3 of 2012 set aside; action of Sub-Registrar declared illegal; direction to receive and register the sale deed.

Kakarla Ramalakshumaiah, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11571 of 2013

¶3

Date: April 29, 2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

1. Kakarla Ramalakshumaiah & 2 others. … Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

1. The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District & 3 others. … Respondents

¶8

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.11571 of 2013

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the Tahsildar, Veeraballi Mandal, Kadapa District, in including the land admeasuring Ac.5.08 cents in Survey No.613/1 of Veeraballi Village and Mandal, Kadapa District, in the list of assigned/Government lands on the ground that this land is shown as Assessed Waste Dry (AWD) land basing on the ‘dots’ in the Re-Survey and Re-Settlement (RSR) Register; and the consequential action of the Sub-Registrar, Rayachoty, in refusing to entertain the sale deed presented by them for registration in respect of the said land under Refusal Order No.3 of 2012 dated 29.10.2012.

¶13

2. On the basis of the written instructions dated 27.04.2013 received from the Tahsildar, Veeraballi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, states that the land admeasuring Ac.5.08 cents in Survey No.613/1 of Veeraballi Village, is being

¶14

treated as AWD land based on the entry of ‘dots’ against this land in the RSR Register.

¶15

3. This Court has time and again held that entries in the RSR Register and more particularly ‘dots’ against any particular land, would not establish that the said land belongs to the Government, whereby it could be included in a prohibitory list communicated to the Registration Authorities. In the event there is a title dispute with regard to such lands, the Government would necessarily have to assert and establish its title before the competent forum in accordance with law. It cannot unilaterally prohibit registration of documents in respect of such lands basing on such Revenue entries. Significantly, in most such cases the facts establish possession of the citizens over such lands, prima facie belying the claim of the Government. It is also to be remembered that mere registration of a document in respect of such land would not divest the Government of its title, if any, over such lands and seek cancellation of the registered deeds.

¶16

4. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the Refusal Order No.3 dated 29.10.2012 and declaring the action of the Sub-Registrar, Rayachoty, in refusing to entertain the petitioners’ sale deed in respect of the subject land, as illegal and unsustainable. There shall be a consequential direction to the Sub-Registrar, Rayachoty, to receive and process the document presented by the petitioners in respect of their land admeasuring Ac.5.08 cents in Survey No.613/1 of Veeraballi Village and Mandal, Kadapa District, without reference to the prohibitory list and the Revenue entries in the RSR Register. In the event the document presented is found to fulfil the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Sub-Registrar, Rayachoty, shall complete the registration formalities and release the document in accordance with the due procedure. W.P.M.P. No.14332 of 2013 shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No costs.

¶17

__________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶18

Date: April 29, 2013. BSB

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.11571 of 2013

¶21

Date: April 29, 2013

¶22

BSB

Kakarla Ramalakshumaiah, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakarla Ramalakshumaiah, 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

Smt. K.Lakshmi Devi Vs The Joint Sub-Registrar

Deepika Chit Funds Private Limited Vs Karnataka Bank Limted

Mrs. Lingamaneni Prasanthi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Muralidhar, Vs The District Collector

D. Bhanumathi, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Chikkala J.J.Satya Nageswara Rao, Vs The Sub Registrar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam.