Allowed

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

Telangana HC27 Dec 2013WP/38384/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to issue a market value certificate for the petitioner's property and to process conveyance documents without unjustly applying an earlier prohibitive order, provided compliance with relevant statutes.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 5th respondent to issue a market value certificate and process conveyance documents without reference to the prohibited land order dated 17.01.2012.

B.Kumar Swami Reddy, S/o.. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs The… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.38384 of 2013

¶3

Dated : 27.12.2013

¶4

Between: B.Kumar Swami Reddy, S/o Ramakrishna Reddy .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary and others .. Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.38384 of 2013

¶7

ORDER :

¶8

The petitioner owns and possess the property bearing house Nos.2/76-G, 2/76-H and 2/76-11 situated in Banaganapalle Nagar Panchayat, Kurnool District, which was built in a plinth area of 1156.437 square feet and existing in an extent of 191.24 square yards. The said house

¶9

is in Survey No.163/1 of Banaganapalle, Kurnool District. Due to financial crises, the petitioner intend to dispose of the property and made an application to the 5^th respondent for issuance of market value certificate, but the 5^th respondent refused to issue the same on the ground that the land in Survey No.163/1 is prohibited for registration. Therefore, no registration can be made and thus no market value certificate can be issued.

¶10

Vide letter No.R.Dis.(E2)/2845/2010, dated 17.01.2012, the land in Survey No.163/1 of Banaganapalle Village is also included in the prohibited area and the Sub-Registrar, Banaganapalle Village requested not to entertain any document for registration concerning the said survey number. On the same issue, this Court passed several orders and inspite of the same, the concerned authority is refusing to issue valuation certificate and for entertaining the documents for registration. The approach of the respondents is deprecated.

¶11

In W.P.No.20076 of 2012 this Court passed the following order :-

¶12

“Inasmuch as the house property of the petitioner admeasuring Acs.36.66 square yards is situated in Survey No.163/1 of Banaganapalle Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, which was originally included in the list of properties prohibited from registration and, now, basing on the written instructions, it is submitted that recommendations have already been made for deletion of the entire Survey No.163/1, admeasuring Acs.78.25 cents, from the properties prohibited from registration under the Registration Act, 1908, 5^th respondent herein is directed to receive and process the document that may be presented by the petitioner for sale of the house property in question, without treating the same as Government property. It is clarified that, it is open to the 5^th respondent to verify whether the said document is in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.”

¶13

For the reasons alike, this Writ Petition is also disposed of directing the 5^th respondent to issue market value certificate and as and when the deed of conveyance is presented for registration of the property bearing house Nos.2/76-G, 2/76-H and 2/76-11 situated in Banaganapalle Nagar Panchayat, Kurnool District, the 5^th respondent shall receive and process the same without reference to the letter No.R.Dis.(E2)/2845/2010, dated 17.01.2012, subject to the documents presented for registration being in accordance with the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶14

Miscellaneous petition, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand

¶15

closed.

¶16

___________________

¶17

P.NAVEEN RAO, J

¶18

December 27^th , 2013. ssp

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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.

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

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