Allowed

Sri.P.Srinivasa Mahesh, S/o.Sri.P.Surya Prakash Rao, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Dept

Telangana HC6 Sept 2013WP/25591/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a mere letter listing temple lands cannot trigger a prohibition under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 without a notification under Section 22-A(2). The petition was allowed, directing the registrar to process the document.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Proddatur, is directed to receive, process, and complete registration formalities for the petitioner's document.

Sri.P.Srinivasa Mahesh, S/o.Sri.P.Surya Prakash Rao, Vs… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.25591 of 2013

¶3

Date:06.09.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

P. Srinivasa Mahesh And Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad & others.

… Petitioner

… Respondents

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.25591 of 2013

¶11

O R D E R:

¶12

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Joint SubRegistrar-I, Proddatur, Kadapa District, in acting upon the letter dated 19.02.2013 addressed to him by the Executive Officer of Group of Temples-II, Mydukur, Kadapa District, the 06^th respondent, and refusing registration of the document presented by the petitioner relating to the house property bearing Municipal No.3-72, situated in Survey No.315/3A of Proddatur Village and Municipality, Kadapa District.

¶13

2. Perusal of the letter dated 19.02.2013 indicates that the 06^th respondent claimed that the lands listed therein belonged to Sri Vitta Tayaramma Sathram, Proddatur, and that the said lands would not be amenable to private transactions. He therefore requested the SubRegistrar, Proddatur, not to register any documents relating to the said

¶14

lands. Survey No.315/3A of Proddatur Village is one of the lands mentioned in the said letter.

¶15

3. The Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Proddatur, filed a counter in an earlier writ petition pertaining to this very survey number viz., WP No.14482 of 2013, admitting that it was on the basis of the letter addressed to him by the Executive Officer, Group of Temples-II, Mydukur, that a prohibition was sought to be operated with regard to registration of documents relating to the lands detailed therein under Section 22-A(1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶16

4. The 06^th respondent herein filed a separate counter in the said writ petition claiming that Sri Vitta Tayaramma Choultry, Proddatur, a charitable institution, was registered under Section 6 (c)(ii) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. According to him, this choultry owned various properties, one of which is the land in Survey No.315/3 of Proddatur Village.

¶17

5. Significantly, there is a discrepancy as to the survey number, as the petitioner claims interest in the land situated in Survey No.315/3A and not in Survey No.315/3. However, this controversy is of no consequence in the light of the order proposed to be passed hereunder.

¶18

6. Admittedly, the registration authorities and the 06^th respondent are proceeding under the impression that a prohibition would operate under Section 22-A (1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, as to registration of documents in which a charitable institution or religious endowment claims interest, by mere communication of a list of such lands. A similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in Pasuparthi Jayaram V. The Government of Andhra Pradesh^[1] . This Court held therein that Section 22-A (1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, did not authorize the Endowments Department to address a list

¶19

of properties in which temples /religious institutions/endowments claimed interest and thereby seek to put in place a prohibition as to registration of documents relating thereto under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Significantly, Section 22-A (1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908, would come into play in such a situation and a notification under Section 22-A (2) would be necessary for such a prohibition to operate. It is not in dispute that there is no such notification issued in the context of the land in the subject survey number.

¶20

7. Thus, for reasons alike as were mentioned in Pasuparthi Jayaram¹ , this writ petition is allowed. There shall be a consequential direction to the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Proddatur, to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner without reference to the letter dated 19.02.2013 received by him from the 06^th respondent. In the event the document presented is found to fulfil the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Proddatur, shall complete the registration formalities and release the document in accordance with the due procedure. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶21

________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J.

¶22

Date: 06.09.2013 BSS

¶23

[1] [ 1] 2013 (4) ALT 541

Sri.P.Srinivasa Mahesh, S/o.Sri.P.Surya Prakash Rao, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Dept

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.P.Srinivasa Mahesh, S/o.Sri.P.Surya Prakash Rao, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Dept

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

T. Nagamma Vs The Govt. of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Moghal Hathala Baig, S/o Ismail Baig, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Immadi Pitchamma Vs A.P. State Waqf Board

Jinka Brahmaiah, Vs The Sub-Registrar

B.Rama Rao Vs B.Janardhan Reddy

N.Ramaiah, Vs B. Janardhan Reddy