Disposed

Aetigadda Peddanna v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC17 Apr 2014WP/11637/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge writ petition challenging the requirement of No Objection Certificates for registering immovable property documents. The court disposed of the petition by directing the Sub-Registrar to register documents complying with the Registration and Stamp Acts without insisting on NOCs unless refusal reasons are provided under Section 71.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Sub-Registrar, Kadiri to receive and process documents without insisting on NOCs and register them if they meet statutory requirements under the Registration and Stamp Acts.

Aetigadda Peddanna Vs The Government of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

Present

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.11637 of 2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

Aetigadda Peddanna, S/o. Pedda Gangappa, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Allugundu Village, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Anantapur District & 5 others

¶8

.. Petitioners

¶9

AND

¶10

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Registrations, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & 2 others

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.11637 of 2014

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

In this writ petition, the only grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the insistence by the registering authorities on production of ‘No Objection Certificates’ (NOCs) from the Revenue Authorities as a condition precedent for receiving and registering the documents presented by them for registration in connection with immovable properties.

¶17

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for petitioners 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 petitioners also submits that the land in issue is not assigned to Ex-Servicemen.

¶18

3. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar, Kadiri, Anantapur District (3^rd respondent) to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioners without insisting upon

¶19

such NOC and in the event the documents presented fulfil the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, he shall register and release the documents in accordance with the due procedure. However, if the 3^rd respondent is of the opinion that the documents presented for registration warrant 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.

¶20

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J

¶21

Date: 17^th April, 2014 KL

¶22

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.11637 of 2014

¶24

Date: 17^th April, 2014

¶25

Aetigadda Peddanna v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aetigadda Peddanna 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/ s. R.R. Gopal Vs Mr.Khusro Pasha

Sri Kishore Pokala, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P. Dastagiramma, Vs The Sub Registrar

Maddisetti Venkateswarlu, Vs The Government of India

Smt. Kambampati Mahalakshmi, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

T. Hemanth Kumar Vs The Government of India