Allowed

Bathula Bhadraiah v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC4 Sept 2013WP/25922/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Sub-Registrar to accept a sale deed for registration, holding that the mere pendency of a related litigation before this court did not justify refusal absent a specific judicial interdict.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to receive, entertain, process and deal with the document for registration under the Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and to communicate any rejection

Bathula Bhadraiah Vs State of A.P. — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.25922 of 2013

¶3

Dated : 04.09.2013

¶4

Between: Bathula Bhadraiah and others .. Petitioners And State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary and others

¶5

.. Respondents

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.25922 of 2013

¶8

ORDER :

¶9

The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the Sub-Registrar, Registration & Stamps Department, Badvel, Kadapa District, the 3^rd

¶10

respondent, in refusing to receive and register the sale deed executed by them in favour of a third party in respect of their property viz., an extent of land admeasuring 15 cents (724.25 sq. yards) in Survey No.1107/1, Rangasamudram village and Panchayat, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District. The refusal stems from the fact that this Court is seized of a litigation pertaining to Survey No.1107 of Rangasamudram village, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District in W.P. No.1427 of 2010.

¶11

2. It is pertinent to note that when registration of a mortgage document pertaining to a piece of land in Survey No.1107 of Rangasamudram village was refused on the same ground, the presenter of the said document filed W.P. No.8309 of 2011 before this Court. By order dated 09.06.2011, this Court disposed of the said writ petition taking note of the fact that the mere pendency of W.P. No.1427 of 2010 by itself was not justification enough for the registering authority to decline registration of a document and directing the registering authority to receive, entertain, process and deal with the document presented for registration in accordance with law.

¶12

3. It is pertinent to note that there is no order from this Court interdicting the registering authority from proceeding with the registration of any document in connection with the land in Survey No.1107 of Rangasamudram village, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District. Unless such an injunction is passed by a competent court of law, it would not be open to the registering authority to refuse to accept a document for registration.

¶13

4. There shall accordingly be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to receive, entertain, process and deal with the document presented by the petitioners for registration in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, without reference to the pendency of W.P. No.1427 of 2010 before this Court. In the event the 3^rd respondent finds any valid reason to refuse registration, he necessarily has to pass an order to that effect under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 and communicate the same to the petitioners within two (2) weeks from the date of presentation of the document for registration.

¶14

5. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. W.P.M.P. No.32011 of 2013 shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶15

________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 04.09.2013 BSS

Bathula Bhadraiah v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bathula Bhadraiah v. State of A.P.

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. Agarwal Foundaries Vs The Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., of A.P.

B.K.Mohan, Vs Sri.Y.Jagadeesh Prasad

Abhinaya Enterprises (Regd. No. A/6700 1-1313), Vs The A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited

Ardula Baji, S/o.Muthaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Gaddala Naga Purushothama Rao, Vs The Sub Registrar

Nuakala Phani Kumar, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh