Allowed

P.Saifuddin, v. The Government of A.P.

Telangana HC1 Jul 2014WP/17865/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged prohibitory endorsement by Sub-Registrar refusing to process sale deed. Court allowed writ petition directing Sub-Registrar to receive and process the document without reference to the 2012 letter, subject to statutory compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directed 5th respondent to receive and process the document without reference to the letter dated 17.01.2012, subject to statutory requirements.

P.Saifuddin, Vs The Government of A.P. — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶4

Present

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.17865 of 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Saifuddin, S/o. P. Mahaboob Peera, Muslim, Aged about 37 years, Banaganapalle Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department (Stamps & Registration), Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.17865 of 2014

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

This writ petition is instituted declaring the list of immovable properties in Survey No.163/1 of Banaganapalle Village, furnished by the District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District (3^rd respondent), to the Sub-Registrar, Banganapalle Village and Mandal, Kurnool District (5^th respondent), vide Lr.R.dis.E2/2845/2010, dated 17.01.2012, and the consequential endorsement of the 5^th respondent, dated 13.06.2014, whereunder prohibiting the registration of the property in Survey No.163/1 of Banaganapalle Village in Kurnool District, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶18

2. It is contended by the petitioner that as a result of said illegal orders, the application submitted to the 5^th respondent on 31.05.2014 for the purpose of Market Value to ascertain the stamp duty and registration charges is not received and processed.

¶19

3. The petitioner herein intending to dispose of the said property in favour of third parties has submitted an application to the 5^th respondent on 13.06.2014 for issuing certificate of

¶20

market value. The 5^th respondent made the impugned endorsement stating that the property covered in Survey No.163/1 of Banaganapalle Village is prohibited property, as per the list of immovable properties furnished by the 3^rd respondent to the 5^th respondent, dated 17.01.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶21

4. Concerning the property in respect of the same survey number, following the order in W.P.No.28546 of 2012, dated 18.09.2012, this Court by order, dated 04.07.2013, allowed W.P.No.19070 of 2013 holding the action of the Sub-Registrar in refusing to receive and process the sale deed document as illegal. The said order reads as under:

¶22

“For reasons alike as were mentioned in the said order, this writ petition is allowed holding that there is no basis for the inclusion of the petitioner’s land in Survey No.163/1 of Banaganapalle Village, in the list of prohibited properties communicated by the Revenue Authorities to the Registration Authorities. In the event the Government claims the subject land as its own, it is open to it to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent forum in that regard and seek cancellation of the registered transactions thereafter. The endorsement dated 01.07.2013 of the Sub-Registrar, Banaganapalle, is accordingly set aside. The Sub-Registrar, Banaganapalle, is accordingly directed to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject land without reference to the letter dated 17.01.2012, subject to the document presented for registration being in accordance with the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.”

¶23

5. Following the above decision, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar, Banaganapalle Village and Mandal, Kurnool District (5^th respondent) to receive and

¶24

process the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject land without reference to the letter, dated 17.01.2012, subject to the document presented for registration being in accordance with the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed.

¶25

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 1^st July, 2014

¶26

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.17865 of 2014

¶29

Date: 1^st July, 2014

¶30

P.Saifuddin, v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Saifuddin, v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinna Kadirappa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Vinukonda Vijayalaksluni Vs The Govt. of Telangana

The Gram Panchayat Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.P.Naga Lakshmamma, Vs The Government of A.P.

M/ s.Boppana Civil Constructions, Vs The Visakhapatnam Port Trust

Mohammed Moiz Ahmed, Vs The Regional Passport Officer