Disposed

Aluganti , Gopisetty Narappa, v. The State of a.P.represented by

Telangana HC24 Jul 2014WP/15096/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition where the Sub-Registrar failed to register a document. The court directed the third respondent to register the document, relying on a prior Division Bench judgment that removed the requirement for a No Objection Certificate in this specific context.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent-Sub-Registrar to register the document presented on 08.07.2014 without insisting on a No Objection Certificate.

Aluganti , Gopisetty Narappa, Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.15096 of 2014

¶2

ORDER

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. No counter affidavit is filed in spite of six adjournments.

¶4

2. In the affidavit, petitioners state that the land admeasuring Ac.3.82 cents in Sy.No.1728/B-1,situated at Kurabalakota Revenue Village, Chittoor District, has been owned by them under an earliest sale deed, dated 13.02.1935, and since then, there have been number of transactions by registered documents. Petitioners further state that their mother was also granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds. As the revenue record reflects that the lands are patta lands, the petitioners’ right to alienate a part of the said land by registered document cannot be objected to.

¶5

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have presented a document on 08.07.2014 by paying the requisite stamp duty and registration fee. However, the registration of the said document has not been taken up by the third respondent.

¶6

4. In W.P.No.1653 of 2013 dated 01.10.2013, a Division Bench of this Court directed as under;

¶7

“Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. We direct henceforth that no Government official shall act or take action in any manner

¶8

unless that official concerned is authorized by law. Accordingly, the No Objection Certificate which was hitherto been asked for registration of the document shall not be demanded any more unless it is authorized by an appropriate enactment with prospective effect and not retrospective effect”.

¶9

In view of the said authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench Judgment, the third respondent-Sub-Registrar, is directed not to insist upon No Objection Certificate from the petitioners in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.3-82 cents in Sy.No.1728/B-1 situated at Kurabalakota Revenue Village, Chittoor District, and further directed to register the document presented by the petitioners on 08.07.2014. The registration of the document, however, shall be without prejudice to the claim of the Government for title.

¶10

5. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶11

_______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶12

24^th July, 2014 sj

Aluganti , Gopisetty Narappa, v. The State of a.P.represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aluganti , Gopisetty Narappa, v. The State of a.P.represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Desala Narasimharaju, Vs The Additional Agent to the Government

P.Satyavathi, Vs The Additional Agent to the Government

G. Bhaskara Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pendor Jaiwantha, D/o. Vasantha Rao, Vs The Government of Telangana

D.Gajender S/o.D.Suryankanth Vs Government of Telangana

Gadamsetty Punna Rao Vs Gadamesetty Katchamsetty