Disposed

Lakkaenboina Sujatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC28 Apr 2014WP/13317/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of writ petitions challenging the refusal by the Joint Sub Registrar to furnish market value and register documents. It held objections based on pending proceedings invalid per precdent, and directed the Sub Registrar to verify absence of injunction before processing documents.

What did the court decide?

Directions to afford opportunity to prove no injunction exists; upon verification, furnish market value and process documents within two weeks.

Lakkaenboina Sujatha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.13317 and 13373 of 2014

¶3

Dated : 28.04.2014

¶4

W.P.No.13317 of 2014

¶5

Between:
Lakkaenboina Sujatha And	.. Petitioner
State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and others
	.. Respondents
W.P.No.13373 of 2014
Between:
Pidathala Saraswathi	.. Petitioner
And
State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and others	.. Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION Nos.13317 and 13373 of 2014

¶8

COMMON ORDER :

¶9

Since the issues involved in both these writ petitions are intrinsically connected, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶10

2. The petitioners, who claim to be the General Power of Attorney Holders of American Baptist Foreign Mission Society, aver that society owns land in Survey Nos.435 and 436 of Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District. With intention to sell the land, when they approached the Joint Sub Registrar, Kanigiri (4^th respondent) to ascertain the market value of the said lands, the Joint Sub Registrar, Kanigiri refused to furnish the information on the following grounds:

¶11

1. An interim order issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in contempt petition No.1205 of 2010 is pending.

¶12

2. As per the District Registrar, Markapur Memo No.G/217/2009 Dt.2608-2010, the Sub Registrar, Kanigiri is directed not to Register the documents in respect of this Survey numbers along with other survey Numbers.

¶13

3. The Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Kavali passed an interim injection order in O.S.No.202/2010 in respect of the above Survey Numbers.

¶14

3. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed these Writ Petitions.

¶15

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that insofar as Objection Nos.1 and 2 raised by the Joint Sub Registrar, Kanigiri, is concerned, the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.No.34689 of 2012, wherein this Court held as under:

¶16

“Unless a Court of competent jurisdiction has granted injunction against alienation of the properties in respect of which documents are sought to be registered by the petitioner, respondent No.3 cannot refuse registration of the same. Respondent No.3 is therefore directed to receive and register the documents that may be presented by the petitioner, subject to the latter complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, unless there is an order of injunction against alienation of the properties in question by a Court of competent jurisdiction.”

¶17

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that following the above said order, several Writ Petitions were disposed of and therefore, Objection Nos.1 and 2 are not valid. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to present the documents and transfer the ownership of the properties in question.

¶18

6. Insofar as Objection No.3 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no injunction is granted by the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali in O.S.No.202 of 2010 and that if an opportunity is afforded to the petitioners by the Joint Sub Registrar, Kanigiri, they would satisfy him about the non-granting of injunction by the Civil Court.

¶19

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

¶20

1. Insofar as Objection Nos.1 and 2 raised by the Joint Sub Registrar, Kanigiri, they are no more valid in view of the decision of this Court in W.P.No.34689 of 2012, following which judgment, several Writ Petitions viz., W.P.Nos.13573 of 2013 and 7148 of 2013 etc., were disposed of by this Court.

¶21

2. Insofar as Objection No.3 is concerned, the Joint Sub Registrar, Kanigiri, is directed to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to present relevant documents to prove

¶22

that no injunction was granted by the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, in O.S.No.202 of 2010 in respect of the property in question, and on due verification and if he is satisfied that competent Court has not passed an order of injunction as contended by petitioners, the Joint Sub Registrar, Kanigiri shall furnish the market value of the property in question within a period of two weeks from the date of submission of representations enclosing the relevant documents and as and when the documents are presented for registration, he shall receive and process the same in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908.

¶23

8. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶24

__________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶25

Date : 28.04.2014 va

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION Nos.13317 and 13373 of 2014

¶28

Dated : 28.04.2014

¶29

Lakkaenboina Sujatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakkaenboina Sujatha v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Saiprabha, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pandraju Ashalatha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr.Vikram Reddy Masani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Arisetty Krishna Rao, S/o.late Seetharamayya, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

A.Lakshmi Nagamani, W/o. Late a.Sivaramaiah Vs The Government of A.P.

Boggula Ramakka Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh