Allowed

P.Krishna Reddy v. The Government of A.P.

Telangana HC27 Dec 2013WP/38288/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that there is no legal sanction for insisting on No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from Revenue Authorities for document registration. It directed the Joint Sub-Registrar to process and register the petitioner's documents if they comply with the Registration Act and Stamp Act requirements.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Joint Sub-Registrar to receive and register the petitioner's documents without insisting on an NOC if the document fulfills the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian

P.Krishna Reddy Vs The Government of A.P. — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.38288 of 2013

¶3

Dated : 27.12.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

P.Krishna Reddy, S/o late Malla Reddy

¶6

.. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary and others

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.38288 of 2013

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the ground that the petitioner has not produced No Objection Certificate from the revenue authorities, the document i.e., deed of conveyance produced by the petitioner is not being processed by the 4^th respondent for registration.

¶12

2. The grievance of the petitioner 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 him for registration in connection with immovable properties.

¶13

3. 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, 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.

¶14

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:

¶15

“Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and order of the

¶16

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.

¶17

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.”

¶18

5. It is unfortunate that the Registering Authorities continue to insist upon “No Objection Certificate” from the Revenue Authorities before receiving the

¶19

documents pertaining to immovable properties.

¶20

6. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Joint Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy, Medak District-4^th respondent to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioner without insisting upon such NOC and in the event the document presented fulfil the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, he shall register and release the documents in accordance with the due procedure. If, however the 4^th 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 petition, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶21

___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J

¶22

December 27^th , 2013. ssp

P.Krishna Reddy v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Krishna Reddy v. The Government of A.P.

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

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

Gourishetti Chandrasekhar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Nagendla Glory Shekar. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. B.Venkata Lakshmamma, Vs The Government of A.P.

B.Kumar Swami Reddy, S/o.. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Secretary

M/s. Pristine Agro Ltd., Vs Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to the Govt. of India