Dismissed

Mrs. Pirlamarla Arundathi , Aruna P Gupta, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Aug 2017WP/27489/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged denial of registration and market value certificate for land included in a prohibited list. Court declined direct interference, directing petitioner to file a claim with District Collector with supporting documents to delete the property from the list.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach District Collector with supporting documents to delete property from prohibited list; writ petition otherwise disposed of.

Mrs. Pirlamarla Arundathi , Aruna P Gupta, Vs The State… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27489 OF 2017

¶3

DATED : 17.08.2017

¶4

Between : Mrs.Pirlamarla Arundathi @ Aruna P Gupta W/o.Ram P Gupta, Aged about 72 yrs, Occu : Doctor, Presently residing at 553 Hampton, Hill Road, Franklin Lakes, New Jersy 07417, USA, Rep., by her SPA Holder, Sri Pirlamarla Vittal, S/o.P.Eshwaraiah, Aged about 75 yrs, Occu : Agriculture, R/o.H.No.6-3-25, Shivajinagar, Sanga Reddy Town and District, Telangana.

¶5

.. Petitioner And

¶6

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. .. Respondents

¶7

This court made the following :

¶8

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.27489 OF 2017

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

Petitioner claims that she is the absolute owner and possessor of property admeasuring Ac.3-30 guntas in Sy.Nos.76, 77 and 78 of Arutla Village, Kandi Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, having purchased in the year 2003 and 2004. Petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records and was issued pattedar pass book and title deeds. Petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. When petitioner intends to dispose of the property and approached the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Sanga Reddy (3^rd respondent) to furnish the market value certificate, the 3^rd respondent supplied copy of the market value dated 29.06.2017, wherein it was mentioned that Sy.Nos.76 to 78 of Arutla Village, Kandi Mandal, Sanga Reddy District is prohibited from registration under Section 22 (1) (a) of the Registration Act, 1908. Aggrieved thereby this writ petition is filed.

¶14

The issue of registration of documents presented before the registering authority and inclusion of properties in the prohibited list are all considered by the Full Bench of this Court and the Full Bench rendered judgment in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary Vs State of Andhra Pradesh¹ , and gave detailed directions on all aspects.

¶15

According to the directions issued by the Full Bench a person aggrieved by inclusion of property claimed by him as owned, in prohibited list, is entitled to apply to the District

¶16

1 2016 (1) ALT (550) (F.B)

¶17

¶18

Collector for rectification of the revenue records by enclosing all the documents in support of his claim. As and when such claim is made, the District Collector is required to consider the same and take appropriate action either affirming inclusion in the prohibited list or deleting the property from the prohibited list.

¶19

In the case on hand, though petitioner was informed that her property is included in the prohibited list, she did not apply to the District Collector with supporting material to exclude the property from the prohibited list and straight away instituted this writ petition. Unless the property is deleted from the list of prohibited properties, the Registering authority cannot be compelled to furnish market value and to entertain the document for registration. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

¶20

Granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Collector, with all the supporting documents requesting to delete the property from the prohibited list, the writ petition is disposed of. It is needless to observe that as and when such request is made, the same shall be considered and appropriate decision be taken and communicated to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of such request. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

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

¶22

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶23

17^th August, 2017 Rds

¶24

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.27489 OF 2017

¶27

DATED : 17.08.2017

¶28

Rds

Mrs. Pirlamarla Arundathi , Aruna P Gupta, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Pirlamarla Arundathi , Aruna P Gupta, v. The State of Telangana

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

Mohammed Yousuf, Vs The State of Telangana

Machela Subhashini, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Verukala Vara Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

Kantipudi Veerraju, Vs Nagedi Meera Saheb, (died)

Imandi Mallaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Nukam Savithri, Vs The State of Telangana