Allowed

Tippana Kamala, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC10 Sept 2013WP/26358/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of two writ petitions challenging the insisting by registering authorities on No Objection Certificates from Revenue Authorities. Ruling that there is no legal sanction for such insistence and citing a Government memo, the court directed authorities to process documents without NOCs, provided they meet statutory requirements, and to issue written reasons for any refusal.

What did the court decide?

Directing Registering Authorities to receive and process documents without insisting on NOCs from Revenue Authorities; parties complying with due procedure must be registered; refusal requires written

Tippana Kamala, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.26339 of 2013 and WRIT PETITION No.26358 of 2013

¶3

Date: September 10, 2013

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.26339 of 2013:

¶5

Between: M. Annapurna. … Petitioner And

¶6

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Hyderabad & 4 others. … Respondents

¶7

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.26358 of 2013:

¶9

Between: 1. Tippana Kamala & 5 others. … Petitioners

¶10

and

¶11

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents.

¶12

*** * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR**

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.26339 of 2013 and WRIT PETITION No.26358 of 2013

¶14

COMMON ORDER:

¶15

The grievance of the petitioners in these two 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.

¶16

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 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: September 10, 2013 BSB

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.26339 of 2013 and WRIT PETITION No.26358 of 2013

¶23

Date: September 10, 2013

¶24

BSB

Tippana Kamala, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tippana Kamala, v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

Jinka Brahmaiah, Vs The Sub-Registrar

B.Rama Rao Vs B.Janardhan Reddy

N.Ramaiah, Vs B. Janardhan Reddy

Sri K.John Karunakar S/o K.John Peter Vs The Divisional Forest Officer

Sri K. John Karunakar Vs The Divisional Forest Officer

M/s Deshmukh Cotton Industries, Vs Ap Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.