Allowed

Baipalli Survanarayana v. The State rep. by its Principle Secretary, (Revenue)

Telangana HC13 Sept 2013WP/26749/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of three writ petitions alleging illegal insistence by registering authorities on No Objection Certificates for registering immovable property documents. Echoing prior holdings and referencing a 2012 Government Memo, the Court held that such certification is not required. Petitioners were directed to have documents processed if they met statutory requirements under the R

What did the court decide?

Registering Authorities directed to receive and process documents without demanding NOCs if statutory requirements under Registration and Stamp Acts are met; refusals require written reasons under Sec

Baipalli Survanarayana Vs The State rep… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.26712, 26739 & 26749 of 2013

¶3

Date: 13.09.2013

¶4

W. P. No.26712 of 2013:

¶5

Between:

¶6

Kosaraju Raj Kumar.

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary – Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶12

WRIT PETITION Nos. 26712, 26739 & 26749 of 2013

¶13

COMMON ORDER:

¶14

The grievance of the petitioners in this batch of 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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 order as to costs.

¶19

________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶20

Date: 13.09.2013 VHB/BSS

Baipalli Survanarayana v. The State rep. by its Principle Secretary, (Revenue)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baipalli Survanarayana v. The State rep. by its Principle Secretary, (Revenue)

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

Dasari , Paidikalava Chinna Venkataiah Vs The Joint Sub Registrar

Kandimalla Pramachand, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Baddi Ramana, S/o Musalayya Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep By its District Collector

M/s. Paramatma Cottons Private Limited, Vs Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Co., Ltd.

Sri.K.Sundara Rama Raju, Vs Sub-Registrar