Allowed

A. Anjaneyulu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. through Its Prl.

Telangana HC4 Apr 2014WP/10445/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition directing the Sub-Registrar not to insist on a No Objection Certificate from revenue authorities for registering an immovable property document, provided the document meets the requirements of the Registration and Stamp Acts. In case of refusal, written reasons must be communicated under Section 71.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Sub-Registrar to process and register the document without insisting on a No Objection Certificate, subject to statutory requirements.

A. Anjaneyulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

Present

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.10445 of 2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

A. Anjaneyulu, S/o. Adi Naganna, Age 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, Residing at Upparapalli Village, Anantapur Rural Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. through its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.10445 of 2014

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

When the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the grievance in this writ petition is only with reference to insistence by the registering authority to obtain No Objection Certificate from the revenue authorities and the relief to that extent be granted.

¶17

2. In this writ petition, the only grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the insistence by the registering authorities on production of ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from the Revenue Authorities as a condition precedent for receiving and registering the document presented by him for registration in connection with immovable property.

¶18

3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue submit that the subject matter to the extent of No Objection Certificate is squarely covered by the decision of Division Bench in W.A.No.1653 of 2013. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. Learned counsel for petitioner also submits that the land in issue is not assigned to Ex-Servicemen.

¶19

4. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar, Anantapur, Anantapur District (4^th respondent) to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner without insisting upon such NOC and in the event the document presented fulfils the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, he shall register and release the document in

¶20

accordance with the due procedure. However, if the 4^th respondent is of the opinion that the document presented for registration warrants denial, he shall pass orders in writing indicating the reasons for such refusal and communicate the same to the party in accordance with Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶21

JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶22

Date: 4^th April, 2014 KL

¶23

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.10445 of 2014

¶25

Date: 4^th April, 2014

¶26

A. Anjaneyulu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. through Its Prl.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Anjaneyulu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. through Its Prl.

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

H.Mylarappa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its

Cholleti Purushotaham Chary, Vs The State of A.P

Vuddhagiri Vaasavi Devi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by The Principal, Secretary

Abdul Khayyum Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Southern Power Distribution Company of a.P.Ltd., Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Southern Power Distribution Company of a.P.Ltd., Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation