Allowed

Ippagunta Venkata Naga Manojnath v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC10 Feb 2016WP/4101/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of five writ petitions challenging the 2nd respondent's refusal to register sale deeds. The court held that recording authorities cannot stop registration based on unexplained reasons or alleged scheme prohibitions. Relying on prior precedents, it directed the respondent to receive and process the documents.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent is directed to receive, process, and register the documents presented by the petitioners in compliance with the Stamp and Registration Acts.

Ippagunta Venkata Naga Manojnath Vs The State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos. 4101, 4202, 4231, 4253 & 4282 of 2016

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶5

The petitioners question the action of the 2nd respondent in not receiving the sale deeds for registration.

¶6

The case of the petitioners is that they approached the 2^nd respondent to register their documents, but the 2^nd respondent refused to receive the same by raising an untenable ground that the properties, which are the subject matter of the documents, cannot be registered and without rendering proper explanation for such refusal, though they explained to him of the factual position of their vendors having right and title over the properties.

¶7

The issue involved in these Writ Petitions is squarely covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1052 of 2012 and batch, dated 09.07.2013 and the operative portion reads as follows:

¶8

“A perusal of the guidelines of the scheme, which are relied upon by the appellants’ counsel, does not contain any clause prohibiting alienation of the land provided under the scheme. It is not even the case of respondent Nos.4 and 5 that there is any prohibition imposed subsequent to the formulation of the scheme.

¶9

If the object of the scheme is to provide agricultural land to the beneficiaries with an intention to provide permanent income generating asset, the authorities ought to have taken steps at the time of formulating the scheme itself by mentioning some clauses of prohibition of alienation of the lands provided under the scheme. Admittedly, there is no such condition of prohibition imposed even by this date. In the absence of such prohibition, the beneficiaries are entitled to sell the land. Hence, we are unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5-appellants herein. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned single Judge, while following the orders of the Division Bench of this Court, has rightly directed respondent No.3-Sub- Registrar to register the documents presented by the petitioners without treating that Section 22-A of the Act applies to the said land. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

¶10

Accordingly, all the writ appeals are dismissed.”

¶11

The said Division Bench in turn had followed orders of another Division Bench in W.A.No.185 of 2012 and batch, dated 15.02.2012. Based on the decisions of the Division Bench, several other Writ Petitions, being W.P.Nos.21322 and 21316 of 2012, dated 13.07.2012, with identical grievance were also disposed of.

¶12

In view of the same, merely on the reasons assigned by the Tahsildar, the registering authorities cannot stop the registration. Therefore, there shall be similar direction in these Writ Petitions also.

¶13

Accordingly, the 2n d respondent is directed to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioners in compliance with the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act and register and release the same in favour of the claimants, if they are found otherwise.

¶14

With the above direction, all the Writ Petitions are allowed.

¶15

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all the Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶17

__________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶18

10^th February, 2016 cbs

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶20

WRIT PETITION Nos. 4101, 4202, 4231, 4253 & 4282 of 2016

¶21

10^th February, 2016

¶22

cbs

Ippagunta Venkata Naga Manojnath v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ippagunta Venkata Naga Manojnath v. The 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

Annamreddy Srinivasulu Reddy , Siva Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Maarupuri Padhakondamma, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary-

K. Dasaradha Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal

Batta Appalaswamy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary -

Nidamolu Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Mallikarjuna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh