Allowed

N. Sinivasulu Naidu, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC3 Jun 2013WP/9564/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that revenue record entries do not prove title. Directing the Sub-Registrar to register the document, the Court ruled that only a specific notification under Section 22-A (2) of the Registration Act can restrain registration, which was absent here.

What did the court decide?

The Sub-Registrar, Piler, Chittoor District, directed to receive, process, and register the document without reference to the revenue department's stand based on RSR entries.

N. Sinivasulu Naidu, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.9654 of 2013

¶3

Date: June 03, 2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

N.Srinivasulu Naidu, S/o Ramaiah, Aged 49 years, R/o Kadapa Road, Piler, Chittoor District …Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and Ors. …Respondents

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.9564 of 2013

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

The petitioner assails the action of the Sub-Registrar, Piler, Chittoor District in refusing to register the document presented for registration by his vendors in respect of the land in Sy.No.329/1B of Kavalipalli Village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶10

The ostensible reason for such refusal is the fact that an

¶11

entry of dots is made against this land in the Resurvey Settlement Register (RSR). It is the case of the petitioner that the subject land is a private patta land and various sale transactions have taken place in respect thereof.

¶12

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, basing on the written instructions dated 16-04-2013 received from the Tahsildar, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District states that the subject land is classified as Government Dry Unoccupied Land (Anaadheenam) basing on the entries in the RSR. It is on this basis it is claimed that the subject land is Government land.

¶13

This Court has time and again held that entries in the RSR do not constitute proof of title over a particular land. The facts obtaining generally belie such a claim as possession of the disputed land(s) is shown to be with individuals. The same is the case presently. It is also to be noticed that mere registration of a document in respect of a particular land would not have the effect of conferring title on the beneficiary of such document as against the true owner who is not a party thereto. In the event the Government is in a position to establish and prove its title in respect of the subject land, it would always be open to it to approach the competent forum for such relief and also to seek cancellation of registered documents, if any, pertaining to such lands. On the basis of mere entries in the revenue records, it is not open to the revenue authorities to restrain the registration

¶14

authorities from proceeding with the registration of documents in respect of a particular land. A notification under Section 22-A (2) of the Registration Act, 1908 would be necessary to effect such restraint and prohibition. Admittedly, there is no such notification in respect of the subject land. The action of the Sub-Registrar, Piler, in denying registration of the document pertaining to the subject land relying on the advise of the revenue authorities therefore cannot be countenanced.

¶15

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar, Piler, Chittoor District, to receive and process the document presented in respect of the subject land without reference to the stand of the revenue department basing on the entries in the RSR. In the event the document presented is found to fulfil the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Sub-Registrar, Piler, shall complete the registration formalities and release the document in accordance with the due procedure. WPMP.No.11914 of 2013 shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No costs.

¶16

________________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶17

Date: June 03, 2013. Grk/jsk

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.9564 of 2013

¶20

Date: June 03, 2013

¶21

Grk/jsk

N. Sinivasulu Naidu, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Sinivasulu Naidu, v. 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

Mannuru Moula Saheb, S/o Peeru Saheb. Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by

Sri Daggupalli Saibaba, Vs Sub-Registrar

Smt.Narisetti Vasundhara Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by the Principal

M/S. Progressive Heat Treaters, (S.C.No. Hdn 1077), Vs Central Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd.

Pasuparthi Jayaram, s/o P. Balaram, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Commissioner

A. Sidda Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh