Dismissed

P. Ashok Kumar, v. The District Registrar

Telangana HC22 Feb 2013WP/5329/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking writ of mandamus to declare action refusing registration of land as prohibited without notification illegal and directing registration. Dismissed for failure to prove approach to respondent with written representation as per existing Common Judgment. Related interlocutory petition disposed of as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed with liberty to file written representation.

P. Ashok Kumar, Vs The District Registrar — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

Writ Petition No.5329 of 2013

¶3

Dated 22.02.2013

¶4

Between: P.Ashok Kumar And The District Registrar, Registration & Stamps Department, Sri Balaji Registration District, Tirupati, Chittoor District and another.

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

…Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.P.Laxma Reddy

¶8

Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

Order:

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

¶12

“to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Second respondent in refusing to receive the document presented by the petitioner and treating the said land in Survey No.242 admeasuring Ac.0-90 cents situated at 14^th ward, Pdamavathipuram, Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati Rural Mandal, as prohibited property for registration without there being any notification under Section 22-A of the registration Act and ignoring the ryotwari pata granted by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Chittoor, as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents to receive, register and release the document presented by the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Stamp Act and Registration Act, without treating the said land as prohibited property.”

¶13

Despite this Court repeatedly holding that in view of Common Judgment, dated 31-12-2012, in W.P.Nos.30526 of 2012 & batch, fresh Writ Petitions need not be filed unless the parties approach the registering

¶14

officers with written representations and despite the same, the latter refuse to follow the said Judgment, fresh Writ Petitions are being filed. Even though the petitioner has submitted that he has approached respondent No.2 with the copy of the aforesaid Judgment, he failed to give the details as to when he has approached and whether any written representation has been made by him. Except the oral assertion that he has approached respondent No.2, the petitioner failed to show any proof in support thereof. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to make a written representation to respondent No.2 and initiate contempt proceedings, if respondent No.2 does not follow Common Judgment, dated 31-12-2012, in WP.Nos.30526 of 2012 & batch.

¶15

As a sequel, WPMP.No.6656 of 2013, filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶16

_____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J

¶17

Date: 22^nd February, 2013 lur

P. Ashok Kumar, v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Ashok Kumar, v. The District Registrar

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

Cheppala Venkata Sivarami Reddy Vs The District collector

Smt M Balamma, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Manukonda Venkata Reddy, Vs The Sub-Registrar

Smt. K.R.Shyamala, Vs The District Collector

Diddi Hanumaiah Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Bomma Kushal Reddy, Vs The Regional Passport Officer