Allowed

Smt. Siddannadala Narayanamma, v. The Government of Ap

Telangana HC12 Dec 2013WP/36371/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court held that insisting on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Revenue Authorities is not legally sanctioned for registering documents. Following a prior Division Bench order, the Court directed the Sub-Registrar to register the petitioner's document complying with the Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act, requiring written reasons only if refused under Section 71.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub-Registrar, Madakasira, Anantapur District, to receive and register the petitioner's document without requiring a Revenue NOC, subject to compliance with the Registration Act and India

Smt. Siddannadala Narayanamma, Vs The Government of Ap — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.36371 of 2013

¶5

Between:

¶6

Smt. Siddannadala Narayanamma

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

AND

¶9

The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.36371 of 2013

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner in this case is with regard to the insistence by the registering authorities on production of ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from the Revenue Authorities as a condition precedent for receiving and registering the document presented by her for registration in connection with immovable property.

¶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 document 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

¶18

registering documents pertaining to immovable properties.

¶19

4. On similar issue, batch of writ petitions were disposed of by this Court by an order, dated 28.06.2013. Aggrieved by the order in W.P.No.12376 of 2013, dated 24.04.2013, the District Collector, Chittoor District, filed Writ Appeal No.1653 of 2013. The Division Bench of this Court affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench issued the following directions:

¶20

“Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. We direct henceforth that no Government official shall act or take action in any manner unless that official concerned is authorized by law. Accordingly, the No Objection Certificate which has hitherto been asked for registration of the document shall not be demanded any more unless it is authorized by an appropriate enactment with prospective effect and not retrospective effect.

¶21

We feel that this judgment has got tremendous public importance. Therefore, a copy of this judgment shall be circulated to all the District Registrars, who in turn, shall issue instructions to their officers concerned under his control.”

¶22

5. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is also disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar, Madakasira, Anantapur District (4^th respondent), to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner without insisting upon such NOC and in the event the document presented fulfils the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, he shall register and release the document in accordance with the due procedure. If, however, the Sub-Registrar, Madakasira, Anantapur District (4^th respondent), is of the opinion that the

¶23

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. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J

¶25

Date: 12^th December, 2013 KL

¶26

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.36371 of 2013

¶28

Date: 12^th December, 2013

¶29

Smt. Siddannadala Narayanamma, v. The Government of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Siddannadala Narayanamma, v. The Government of Ap

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

Sheetal Pankaj Doshi, Vs The Union of India

Vennapoosa Pulla Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammadia and Co., Vs Saleem Bin Amar Jaidi

Velpu Vannuru Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Vangapalli Govind Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

Sutapalli Gunneshwara Rao, S/o.S.Narsingh Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh