Allowed

Mallu Padmalatha v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal

Telangana HC15 Jul 2014WP/19719/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition challenging a Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a deed of conveyance for land described as 'Mangala Inam'. Following a prior precedent, the Court directed the Sub-Registrar to process the deed per the Registration Act, 1908, while reserving the Government's right to eventually assert title.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub-Registrar, Proddatur, to receive and process the deed of conveyance in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908 without objection to the 'Mangala Inam' classification.

Mallu Padmalatha Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19719 OF 2014

¶3

DATE: 15-07-2014

¶4

Between:Mallu Padmalatha D/o.Late Mallu Narasimha Reddy Aged about 29 years, r/o.D.No.3/894, YMR colony, Proddatur Town And Mandal, Kadapa District and others.

¶5

--PETITIONERS

¶6

AND

¶7

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶8

--RESPONDENTS

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.19719 OF 2014

¶12

O R D E R :

¶13

The case of the petitioners says that the mother of the petitioners Smt.Mallu Bhavani purchased land to an extent of 121 square yards in survey No.313 of Proddatur village, Srinivasapuram area, Gopavaram Grampanchayath, Proddatur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, on 29-09-2006 from one Hemanth Kumar vide registered sale deed No.6568 of 2006. Said Hemanth Kumar purchased the same vide registered sale deed No.1984 of 1998. After death of their mother, the petitioners inherited the said property and they are in possession of the same. It is further case of the petitioners that when they approached the Sub-Registrar, Proddatur, 5^th respondent herein to furnish market value, the petitioners were informed that the land in survey No.313 is described as “Mangala Inam” and treated as Government land as per District Collector Kadapa letter No.PDT Cell/1392/2008, dated 17-02-2010 and therefore, no market value can be furnished. This decision of Sub-Registrar, 5^th respondent is under challenge.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents.

¶15

The land in survey number 313 has came up for consideration in W.P.No.4085 of 2014, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue represented before this Court on instructions issued by the competent authority that as land is classified as “Mangala Inam”, no registration or alienation of property can be entertained. The status of lands classified as “Mangala Inam” are considered by this Court in W.P.No.35473 of 2014, dated 21-08-2013. Wherein similar objection was raised. This Court allowed the writ petition overruling the objection. Following the above decision, W.P.No.4085 of 2014 is also allowed.

¶16

In view of the earlier decision of this Court, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District

¶17

(4^th respondent) to receive and process the deed of conveyance as and when presented by the petitioners in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908

¶18

without raising objection that the land cannot be alienated as it is classified as “Mangala” Inam.” However, it is open to the Government to assert its title by following due process of law and mere registration of Deed of Conveyance does not take away such right of the Government to establish its title. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

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

¶20

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶21

Date: 15-07-2014 nvl

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.19719 OF 2014

¶24

DATE: 15-07-2014

¶25

nvl

¶26

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.15737 of 2014

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Date: 10th June, 2014

¶29

¶30

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.15737 of 2014

¶32

Date: 10th June, 2014

¶33

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶35

WRIT PETITION No.23247 OF 2013

¶36

DATE: 12-06-2014

¶37

Between:Krishna Panduranga Joshi

¶38

--PETITIONER

¶39

AND

¶40

The Inspector General of Stamps Registration And Marriage Assurance, MJ Market, Hyderabad and others.

¶41

--RESPONDENTS

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶44

WRIT PETITION No. 23247 OF 2013

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

The case of the petitioner is that vendor of the petitioner earlier registered a plot in the name of the petitioner consisting of 200 square yards on 17-06-1987 vide document baring No.3374/1987, which disclosed that plot fell in lay out which was comprised of Survey No.206, 206,207 and 210. On subsequent enquiries, it was noticed that the plot which was sought to be allotted to the petitioner was actually falling in Survey NO.204 and the plot which was shown in the registered document was registered to some other person. Having realized the mistake, the vendor came forward to register the plot bearing No.41 to an extent of 200 square yards in survey NO.204 of Dommarapochampally Village, Quthubullapuram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶47

The petitioner avers that when petitioner and 4^th respondent appeared before 3^rd respondent to present deed of conveyance,

¶48

the 3^rd respondent refused to entertain the deed without assigning any reasons. Hence, this writ petition.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3^rd respondent refused to receive and process the deed of conveyance, and the action of 3^rd respondent is illegal.

¶50

The 3^rd respondent filed counter affidavit. He avers that the property on which deed of conveyance is proposed is not included in the prohibitory Watch Register. Therefore, there is no question of prohibition of registration of deed of conveyance. It is the contention of the petitioner that the document is presented. Whereas, it is the contention of the 3^rd respondent that the petitioner has not presented any document before him for registration.

¶51

As seen from the record in the writ petition, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner presented the document and

¶52

the 3^rd respondent refused to receive. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the 3^rd respondent illegally refused to entertain the document is not valid. If there is any deed of conveyance between the petitioner and 4^th respondent with reference to plot No.41 to an extent of 200 square yards in survey No.204 of Dommarapochampally Village, Quthubullapuram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, liberty is given to the petitioner to present deed of conveyance and as and when such deed of conveyance is presented before the 3^rd respondent, the 3^rd respondent shall receive and process the same in accordance with Indian Registration and Indian Stamp Act and shall release the document otherwise in order.

¶53

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶54

Pending W.P.M.Ps in this writ petition shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶55

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶56

Date: 12-06-2014 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. nvl

¶57

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶58

nvl

¶59

WRIT PETITION No.23247 OF 2013

¶60

DATE: 12-06-2014

Mallu Padmalatha v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallu Padmalatha v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal

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

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

D.Neela Kumari, D/o.D.Kodanda pani Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gampa Haribabu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Chintala Suresh Kumar, S/o.Sri C.Subbanna, Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Sri Pendurthi Rangarao Vs The Tobacco Board Rep. by its Chairman Guntur

Chunduri Venkateswarlu, S/o Bala Ramaiah, Vs The Auction Superintendent, Auction Plot Form No. 23