Allowed

Dasari , Paidikalava Chinna Venkataiah v. The Joint Sub Registrar

Telangana HC12 Sept 2013WP/19439/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that revenue entries like 'dots' in the Resurvey Register cannot unilaterally prohibit document registration. It directed the Sub-Registrar to register the petitioner's document without reference to such revenue entries.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Sub-Registrar to receive, process, and register the petitioner's document without reference to revenue record entries.

Dasari , Paidikalava Chinna Venkataiah Vs The Joint Sub… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

Writ Petition No.19439 of 2013

¶3

Date: 12.09.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Dasari @ Paidikalva Chinna Venkataiah

¶6

… Petitioner And Joint Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar Proddatur Mandal & others

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶10

Writ Petition No.19439 of 2013

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Joint-Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa district, in not registering the document presented by him relating to the land in an extent of Ac.0.46 cents in Sy.No.60/9 of Peddasettipalle village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa district.

¶13

2. The Tahsildar, Proddatur Mandal, filed a counter-affidavit stating that the land in the subject survey number was classified as Government land basing on the ‘dots’ entered against it in the Resurvey and Settlement Register (RSR). It is on the basis of this entry, he asserts that a prohibition would operate as to registration of documents relating thereto.

¶14

3. This Court has time and again held that entries, including dots in the RSR, 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 land, 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 land basing on such revenue entries. Significantly, in most such cases the facts establish possession of the citizens over such land, 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 land and it would always be open to the Government to establish its title in respect thereof and seek cancellation of the registered deeds.

¶15

4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the SubRegistrar, Proddatur, to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the land in Sy.No.60/9 of Peddasettipalle village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa district, without reference to the entries in the revenue records. In the event the document presented is found to fulfill the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Sub-Registrar, Proddatur, shall complete the registration formalities and release the document in accordance with the due procedure. WP MP No.23785 of 2013 shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶16

________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶17

Date: 12.09.2013. BSS

Dasari , Paidikalava Chinna Venkataiah v. The Joint Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari , Paidikalava Chinna Venkataiah v. The Joint Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sudharshan S/o Cheralu Vs The Andhra Pradesh State ware Housing Corporation

M/s. Sri Venkateswara Varalaksmi Saw Mill, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Khasim S/o Saidulu Vs A.P. State Wakf Board

Kandimalla Pramachand, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Fasiullah Vs The A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep by its Chief Executive Office

Vellanki Krishna Prasad, Vs The Revenue Divisional officer