Allowed

Smt. Chandragiri Varalakshmamma, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC4 Jun 2013WP/15513/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of a batch of writ petitions challenging the demand for 'No Objection Certificates' (NOCs) from Revenue Authorities as a condition precedent for registering immovable property documents. The Court held such insistence had no legal sanction, noting a government memo suspending this requirement. Petitioners were directed to receive documents meeting statutory requirements.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to register documents fulfilling the requirements of the Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act without insisting on No Objection Certificates from Revenue Authorities.

Smt. Chandragiri Varalakshmamma, Vs The District… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.15362 of 2013 & batch

¶3

(W.P. Nos.15362, 15421, 15494, 15496, 15501, 15502, 15513, 15522, 15530, 15535, 15537, 15539, 15541, 15543, 15545 & 15595 of 2013)

¶4

Date: June 04, 2013

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.15362 of 2013

¶6

Between: Palem Kamalamma … Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, YSR Kadapa District & 3 others. … Respondents

¶9

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.15362 of 2013 & batch

¶12

(W.P. Nos.15362, 15421, 15494, 15496, 15501, 15502, 15513, 15522, 15530, 15535, 15537, 15539, 15541, 15543, 15545 & 15595 of 2013)

¶13

COMMON ORDER:

¶14

The grievance of the petitioners in this batch of cases is with regard to the insistence by the registering authorities on production of ‘No Objection Certificates’ (NOCs) from the Revenue Authorities as a condition precedent for receiving and registering the documents presented by them for registration in connection with immovable properties.

¶15

2. This Court has time and again held that there is no legal sanction for the action of the Registration Authorities in insisting upon such certification from the Revenue Authorities before

¶16

entertaining documents for registration. Further, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Memo No.49938/Regn.I/A1/2012-4 dated 06.12.2012 requesting the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, to instruct all the Registering Officers in the State not to ask for NOCs from the Revenue Authorities before registration and not to act on any such NOCs.

¶17

3. In the light of the above, it is not open to the Registering Authorities to continue to insist upon prior certification by the Revenue Authorities before receiving and registering documents pertaining to immovable properties.

¶18

4. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of directing the Registering Authorities concerned to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioners without insisting upon such NOCs and in the event the documents presented fulfil the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, they shall register and release the documents in accordance with the due procedure. If, however, the Registering Authority concerned is of the opinion that the document presented for registration warrants denial, he shall pass orders in writing indicating the reasons for such refusal and communicate the same to the party in accordance with Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. Pending W.P.M.Ps in this batch of cases shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No costs.

¶19

__________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶20

Date: June 04, 2013. 4 BSS

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.15362 of 2013 & batch

¶23

(W.P. Nos.15362, 15421, 15494, 15496, 15501, 15502, 15513, 15522, 15530, 15535, 15537, 15539, 15541, 15543, 15545 & 15595 of 2013)

¶24

Date: June 04, 2013

¶25

BSS

Smt. Chandragiri Varalakshmamma, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chandragiri Varalakshmamma, 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

M/S. Progressive Heat Treaters, (S.C.No. Hdn 1077), Vs Central Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd.

Pasuparthi Jayaram, s/o P. Balaram, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Commissioner

N. Sinivasulu Naidu, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Earle Yerrayyamma, Vs The Sub-Registrar

E.N. Lakshmidevamma, Vs The District Collector

Earle Venkata Nagabhushana Rao, Vs The Sub Registrar