Allowed

Maddileti Subramanyam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC7 Jul 2014WP/18556/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the requirement to produce a Revenue No Objection Certificate for registering property documents. The court directed the SubRegistrar to register documents fulfilling Registration and Stamp Act requirements without the NOC, unless refusal orders citing Section 71 are issued.

What did the court decide?

The Respondent-5 is directed to receive and process documents for registration without insisting on NOC; register them if they fulfill statutory requirements, or refuse with reasons under Section 71.

Maddileti Subramanyam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18556 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

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 Certificate’ (NOC) from the Revenue Authorities as a condition precedent for receiving and registering the documents presented by them for registration in connection with immovable properties.

¶4

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.

¶5

Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the SubRegistrar, C.K. Palli, Ananthapur District (5^th respondent) to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioners without insisting upon 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 5^th 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 petitioners in

¶6

accordance with Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶7

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

¶8

_______________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J

¶9

7^th July, 2014 cbs

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶11

W.P.No.18556 of 2014

¶12

7^th July, 2014

¶13

cbs

¶14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶15

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶16

Present

¶17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18556 of 2014 DATE: 07.07.2014

¶18

Between: Maddileti Subramanyam and another

¶19

... Petitioners

¶20

AND

¶21

The State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others

¶22

.. Respondents

¶23

The Court made the following:

Maddileti Subramanyam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maddileti Subramanyam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

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

M. Nilavathamma Vs The District Collector, Chittoor District.

M. Jayarama Naidu Vs The District Collector

Ch. Giri Prakash, Vs The Government of A.P.

Nallagorla Nageswara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

D.L.Narsimham S/o. late Bala Gandhara Sastry Vs The District Registrar

J. Mohammed Ghouse, S/o Late Jalna Khawja Mian, Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh