Allowed

Nagendla Glory Shekar. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC26 Dec 2013WP/38062/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a document titled to land designated as government poramboke. The petitioner successfully sought to compel registration based on a prior judgment finding that part of the land was sold in court auction.

What did the court decide?

The Sub-Registrar directed to receive, process, and complete registration formalities if requirements of the Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act are fulfilled; otherwise pass orders in writing indic

Nagendla Glory Shekar. Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.38062 of 2013

¶5

Between:

¶6

Nagendla Glory Shekar

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by The Prl. Secretary, Registration and Stamps (Revenue) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.38062 of 2013

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

The petitioner assails the action of the registration authorities in refusing to receive the document presented by him in respect of the premises D.No.30-63, Assessment No.860, to an extent of 900 square yards (756 square meters), Situated at Mission Compound, Galchipeta, Ward No.24, in Survey No.159/2 Part, Salur Municipality, Salur, Vizianagaram District. The reason for the refusal is when the petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar, Salur, Vizianagaram District (3^rd respondent) for registration of the document, he stated that the subject land is a Government poramboke and was, therefore, not amenable to transactions between private parties.

¶15

2. The land in this survey number fell for consideration before this Court in W.P. No.23634 of 2012. A copy of the order, dated 26.11.2012, passed therein is placed on record and reflects that part of the subject land in this survey number was sold in a court auction prior to 1971 and, therefore, the claim of the Government that the entire land in this survey number belonged to it was not accepted. The writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of directing the registration authorities to

¶16

proceed with the registration of documents in respect of this land in accordance with law.

¶17

3. For reasons alike, as were mentioned in the order, dated 26.11.2012, passed by this Court in W.P. No.23634 of 2012, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar, Salur, Vizianagaram District (3^rd respondent) to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject land. In the event the said document is found to fulfil the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Sub-Registrar, Salur, Vizianagaram District (3^rd respondent) shall complete the registration formalities and release the document in accordance with the due procedure. If, however, the Sub-Registrar, Salur, Vizianagaram District (3^rd respondent), 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. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J

¶19

Date: 26^th December, 2013 KL

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.38062 of 2013

¶22

Date: 26^th December, 2013

¶23

Nagendla Glory Shekar. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendla Glory Shekar. v. The State 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

Sri K.Narender, Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Madiga Gangappa Vs The Government of Ap

J. Arvind Kumar, Vs The Cantonment Board

T.Varalakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its PrI.Secretary

Gourishetti Chandrasekhar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

A.P. State Dental Council, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh