Allowed

A.Anwar Hussain, v. The Sub Registrar

Telangana HC23 Dec 2013WP/37602/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the inclusion of his property in a list of prohibited properties furnished by the District Collector to the Sub-Registrar. The Court relied on a previous order holding that refusal to register was illegal, directing the Sub-Registrar to process the partition deed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition allowed; Sub-Registrar directed to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner.

A.Anwar Hussain, Vs The Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.37602 of 2013

¶3

Dated : 23.12.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

A.Anwar Hussain, S/o Ahmed Hussain

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Sub Registrar and others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.37602 of 2013

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

This writ petition is instituted declaring the list of immovable property in Survey No.163/1 of Banaganapalle Town, furnished by the District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District – 2^nd respondent to the Sub-Registrar, Banganapalle Village and Mandal, Kurnool District – 1^st respondent vide Lr.R.Dis.E2/2845/2010 dated 17.01.2012 whereunder prohibiting the registration of the property in Survey No.163/1 of Banaganapalle Village in Kurnool District, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶14

2. It is contended by the petitioner that as a result of said illegal orders, the partition deed document presented by the petitioner is not received and processed. The petitioner states that he is the owner of the house bearing No.6/84 situated in Survey No.163/1 of Banaganapalle Village. He further states that his father constructed the said house about 30 years back. Recently they partitioned their properties. The said house was allotted towards his share. He intends to execute the registered partition deed. When the petitioner submitted an application to the 1^st respondent for issuance of certificate of market value of the property in question, the 1^st respondent issued market value certificate. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the property covered in Survey No.163/1 of Banaganapalle Village is prohibited property, as per the list of immovable properties furnished by the 2^nd respondent - District Collector, Kurnool, to the 1^st respondent - Sub Registrar, Banaganapalle. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶15

3. Concerning the property in respect of the same survey number, following the order in W.P.No.28546 of 2012 dated 18.09.2012 this Court by order dated 04.07.2013 allowed W.P.No.19070 of 2013 holding the action of the Sub-Registrar in refusing to receive and process the sale deed document as illegal. The said order reads as under :-

¶16

“For reasons alike as were mentioned in the said order, this writ petition is allowed holding that there is no basis for the inclusion of the petitioner’s land in Survey No.163/1 of Banaganapalle Village, in the list of prohibited properties

¶17

communicated by the Revenue Authorities to the Registration Authorities. In the event the Government claims the subject land as its own, it is open to it to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent forum in that regard and seek cancellation of the registered transactions thereafter. The endorsement dated 01.07.2013 of the Sub-Registrar, Banaganapalle, is accordingly set aside. The Sub-Registrar, Banaganapalle, is accordingly directed to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject land without reference to the letter dated 17.01.2012, subject to the document presented for registration being in accordance with the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.”

¶18

4. Following the above decision, this Writ Petition is disposed of. The Sub-Registrar, Banaganapalle is directed to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject land without reference to the letter dated 17.01.2012, subject to the document presented for registration being in accordance with the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. No order as to costs.

¶19

5. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶20

___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J

¶21

December 23^rd , 2013. ssp

A.Anwar Hussain, v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Anwar Hussain, v. The Sub Registrar

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

Faqrunnisa Begum, W/o.Late Mohd.Fazil, Vs The State of A.P.

Suvvada Pundari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhureddi Papamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Bobba Narayan Reddy, S/o.Lachi Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.P.Sumathi, W/o K.S.Manjunath Vs Indian Oil Corporation

M/s. Pioneer Enterprises, Vs Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Rep by its