Allowed

Smt Sharifa Bee v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Sept 2013WP/23129/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition challenging the refusal to register land documents due to an Endowments Department list of temple properties. Relying on a prior decision, it held that without a specific notification, the Department cannot prohibit registration, directing the Sub-Registrar to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub-Registrar to receive, process, and complete registration formalities for the documents without reference to the impugned communication dated 19.04.2010.

Smt Sharifa Bee Vs The Government of Andhra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23129 of 2013

¶3

Date: September 18, 2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt. Sharifa Bee … Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad, & 2 others. … Respondents

¶8

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.23129 of 2013

¶11

O R D E R:

¶12

The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the SubRegistrar, Renigunta, Chittoor District, to register the documents presented by her relating to the land in S.No.240/2P/1 of Tiruchanur Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Sri Balaji Registration District, Chittoor District. The basis for this refusal as is evident from the counter of the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, is the communication dated 19.04.2010 addressed by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, to various SubRegistrars in Chittoor District detailing the properties allegedly owned by Sri Swamy Hathi Ramji Math, Tirupati and Sri Bugga Math, Tirupati. By the said letter, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, requested the registration authorities to desist from registering documents relating to the lands detailed in the list appended thereto as Annexure-III.

¶13

2. This very communication fell for consideration before this Court in Pasuparthi Jayaram V . The Government of Andhra Prades h^[1] . Therein this Court held that Section 22-A (1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, did not authorize the communication of such a list of properties allegedly owned by a temple/religious institution. In the absence of a notification under Section 22-A (2) of the Registration Act, 1908, it is not open to the Endowments Department to put in place a prohibition as to registration of documents relating to lands in which a temple/religious institution claims an avowed or accrued interest. Admittedly, there is no notification under Section 22-A (2) of the Registration Act, insofar as the subject land is concerned.

¶14

3. For reasons alike as were mentioned in Pasuparthi Jayaram¹ this writ petition is allowed. There shall be a consequential direction to the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioner relating to the subject land without reference to the letter dated 19.04.2010. In the event the documents presented are found to fulfil the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, shall complete the registration formalities and release the documents in accordance with the due procedure. W.P.M.P. No.28393 of 2013 shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶15

___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J.

¶16

Date: September 18, 2013. BSB

¶17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.23129 of 2013

¶19

Date: September 18, 2013

¶20

BSB

¶21

[1] 2013 (4) ALT 541

Smt Sharifa Bee v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sharifa Bee v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaduputi Babu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the

M/s. Sri Ramanjaneya Saw Mill, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer

G.R.Nagabhushanam Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Rudrakshala Roja Suryakumari, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt C.Sriranjanamma, W/o.Adinarayana Reddy, Vs The Govt. of A.P.

T.Reddeppa Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal