Disposed

Manukonda Venkata Reddy, v. The Sub-Registrar

Telangana HC21 Feb 2013WP/5230/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to declare respondents' inaction regarding a representation about unrealistic property valuation illegal. The court disposed of the petition by directing respondent No. 2 to consider the representation and take action.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to consider petitioner's representation dated 11.09.2012 and take appropriate action within one month. W.P.M.P.No.6515 of 2013 dismissed as infructuous.

Manukonda Venkata Reddy, Vs The Sub-Registrar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5230 of 2013

¶3

Date:21.02.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Manukonda Venkata Reddy

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

And:

¶8

The Sub-Registrar, Kollipara, Guntur District and another.

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Raja Reddy Koneti Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue

¶11

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in considering the petitioner’s representation, dated 11.09.2012, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

The petitioner is the son of one Late Basivi Reddy. During his life time, the petitioner’s father has filed I.P.No.8 of 1980 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tenali and he was declared as insolvent in the year 1985. In order to recover the properties of the insolvent for distribution, the same were sold by the Official Receiver in public auction and the properties were registered in the names of two persons on 14.05.2008 and 29.09.2010 by respondent No.1. The petitioner pleaded that the Official Receiver in collusion with the said purchasers has under valued the properties

¶14

and failed to disclose the existence of structures and machinery over the lands. The petitioner is stated to have submitted representation, dated 11.09.2012, to respondent No.2 with a copy to respondent No.1 for taking appropriate action against the said two purchasers and the Official Receiver. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said representation, no action is taken by the respondents.

¶15

At the hearing, Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908, if any person gets any document registered by intentionally making false statements or intentionally delivering a false copy or by false personation, etc., he is liable for penalty, following prosecution under Section 83 thereof.

¶16

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that respondent No.2 will consider the petitioner’s afore-mentioned representation and take appropriate action in accordance with law. In the light of the above facts, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 11.09.2012, and take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.6515 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶18

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶19

21^st February 2013

¶20

Manukonda Venkata Reddy, v. The Sub-Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manukonda Venkata Reddy, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pyari Begum Vs Sri Anantharamam M.D.

T.Venkata Krishnaveni , T.v.Krishna Veni, Vs Chilakala Paramesh

Sk. Ibrahim Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Cheppala Venkata Sivarami Reddy Vs The District collector

Smt M Balamma, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Waheed Ullah Hussaini Vs The Regional Passport Officer