Allowed

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

Telangana HC17 Sept 2013WP/26933/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order in Writ Petitions held that insisting on Revenue Authority No Objection Certificates for registering immovable property documents is legally unsustainable. Directing authorities to process documents without such NOCs if they meet statutory requirements under the Registration Act and Stamp Act. Pending petitions in the batch stood closed.

What did the court decide?

Directing Registering Authorities to receive and process documents for immovable properties without insisting on Revenue Authority No Objection Certificates, provided statutory requirements are met; p

G.R.Nagabhushanam Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.26933, 26956 & 27020 of 2013

¶3

Date: 17.09.2013

¶4

W. P. No.26933 of 2013:

¶5

Between:

¶6

G.R. Nagabhushanam Reddy & another

¶7

… Petitioners

¶8

And

¶9

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Hyderabad & another

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶13

WRIT PETITION Nos.26933, 26956 & 27020 of 2013

¶14

COMMON ORDER:

¶15

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.

¶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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶21

Date: 17.09.2013 Note: Issue CC in three days (BO) BSS/VHB

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.R.Nagabhushanam Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tenneti Sridevi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s C.G.K. Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited

M/s. Radha Smelters Limited, Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of

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

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

Sri.Murali Mohana Rao, Vs The A.P. State Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd.