Allowed

G. Krishna, S/o. Pandurangaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC22 Apr 2014WP/12251/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging refusal to register a land document, the Court held that a Sub-Registrar cannot insist on Pattadar Passbooks or title deeds in urban areas where they are not issued, directing respondents to process the document.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 and 3 to receive and process the petitioners document without insisting for production of pattadar passbooks or title deeds.

G. Krishna, S/o. Pandurangaiah, Vs The State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.12251 of 2014

¶3

Dated : 22.04.2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

G.Krishna, S/o Pandurangaiah, 40 yrs., Business, R/o D.No.3-110, Venkata Rajanagar, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Registration), Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

This Court made the following :

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.12251 of 2014

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

The petitioner intends to purchase the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Survey No.391 of Settipalli Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. He claimed to have approached the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, Chittoor District for registration. The SubRegistrar refused to entertain the document on the ground that the petitioner has not produced pattadar passbooks and title deeds. It is the case of the petitioner that the Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban Mandal has addressed letter to the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta

¶14

stating that the PPBs/TDs are not issued in the villages of Tirupati Urban Mandal. In spite of the same, the Registering Authority is not accepting the document and insisting for production of PPBs/TDs. Hence, this writ petition.

¶15

2. When the writ petition is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.25054 of 2012. The issue raised in this writ petition is concerning the same village as in W.P.No.25054 of 2012.

¶16

3. It is no doubt true that under Section 6D of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 Sub-Registrar may insist for production of PPBs/TDs, but when PPBs/TDs are not issued in respect of urban areas, may be on account of size of the plots or any other difficulty in making sub-division etc., the Sub-Registrar cannot insist for the same. The PPBs/TDs are not issued is evident from the letter in Roc.B/976/2012, dated 30.5.2012 addressed by the Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban Mandal to the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta. In view of the aforesaid letter, the Registering Authority could not have refused the document for registration only on the ground that the document is not supported by PPBs/TDs.

¶17

4. For the reasons alike, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner without insisting for production of pattadar passbooks or title deeds, taking into account the letter of Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban Mandal dated 30.05.2012 addressed to the 3^rd respondentSub-Registrar, Renigunta. However, it is left open to the registering authority to verify as to whether the document presented by the petitioner is in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶19

__________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date : 22.04.2014 ssp

G. Krishna, S/o. Pandurangaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Krishna, S/o. Pandurangaiah, v. The State 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

Mandem Srinivasulu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Jeeru Venkata Narasimham, S/o.late Suryanarayana Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Elite Consultancy Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

Mohd. Khursheed Ali, Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Smt.P. Roopa Reddy, Vs The Sub-Registrar

Patan Nasurullah Khan, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary