Disposed

Manoj Patel, S/o. Ravilal Patel, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC27 Feb 2013WP/4739/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition regarding non-registration of a compromise decree by directing the Joint Sub-Registrar to issue a notice to the petitioner seeking an explanation regarding the delay in applying for registration and providing a hearing opportunity before taking a final decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of; respondent No.3 directed to issue notice and provide hearing within two months; WPMP disposed of as infructuous.

Manoj Patel, S/o. Ravilal Patel, Vs The Government of… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition No.4739 of 2013

¶3

Dated 27.02.2013

¶4

Between: Manoj Patel And The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Registration and Stamps Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others.

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

…Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner: Akella Padma Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

Order:

¶10

The petitioner has secured a compromise decree in a partition suit from Lok Adalat on 05-05-2008. He has approached respondent No.3 for registration of the said decree and making entries in the registers concerned in his office. As no action was taken thereon, the petitioner had made a representation on 30-04-2010 to respondent No.2. Through letter No.R.O.(O.B) 123, dated 04-062010, the Joint Sub-Registrar- I, Balanagar, Hyderabad, required the petitioner and three others, who are parties to the suit, to submit a partition deed, pay necessary stamp duty and get the same registered and that along with the partition deed, the petitioner has to produce the original final decree passed by the Court. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the original decree was produced but the decree has not been registered.

¶11

At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that the final decree was passed on 05-05-2008, but the petitioner failed to approach the Sub-Registrar within four months as envisaged under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). But however, in the above-mentioned letter, dated 04-06-2010, addressed by the Joint Sub

¶12

Registrar-I, Balanagar, this objection has not been taken. Even in the absence of such objection, since the law requires that an application for registration of the document except the will needs to be filed within the time stipulated in Section 23 read with Section 25 of the Act, it is necessary for respondent No.3 to examine this aspect and take a decision thereon after notice to the petitioner. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the stand taken by the registering officer, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to issue notice to the petitioner indicating therein the objections for registration of the decree. The petitioner is permitted to submit his reply along with the material in support of his case. After giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, respondent No.3 shall take an appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶13

As a sequel, WPMP.No.5919 of 2013, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶14

_____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J

¶15

Date: 27^th February, 2013 lur

Manoj Patel, S/o. Ravilal Patel, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Patel, S/o. Ravilal Patel, v. The Government 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

The A.P. Paper Mills Limited, Vs The Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Sunkara Jyothamma, Vs Dr. T.Radha

M.Venkata Subbaiah Vs The State of A.P.

M.Munirathnam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gulam Afzal, Vs The Director, Central Burea of Investigation (C.B.I)

M.Laxma Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh