Dismissed

N. Parvathi Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Apr 2018WP/11800/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding disputed land title and registration of a conveyance, the High Court directed authorities to register the document as presented but clarified that the transaction remains subject to the outcome of the pending Land Grabbing Case.

What did the court decide?

Direction to receive and register the conveyance document presented by the petitioner, subject to the result of the pending Land Grabbing Case.

N. Parvathi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11800 OF 2018

¶3

Dated:24.04.2018

¶4

Between:

¶5

N. Parvathi Reddy, W/o. N. Anil Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Home Maker, R/o. Plot No.3, Silent Lake Valley, Road No.51, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad .. Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ..Respondents

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.11800 OF 2018

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

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

¶13

Petitioner claims that she purchased plot No.136C, admeasuring 1000 Square Yards, in Survey No.5/3 of Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from one Khaja Ali Ahmed Ansari. Petitioner traces the history of flow of title and claims that the title is valid. The Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, filed L.G.C.No.13 of 2004 before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, seeking a declaration that the land owners in the said Survey No.5 are land grabbers and they are liable to the evicted. The Special Court, by order, dated 27.12.2004, held that any alienation made or any construction made in the schedule property shall be subject to the result of the L.G.C. The said L.G.C. was transferred to the civil Court and renumbered as L.G.O.P.No.1083 of 2016 and is pending on the file of XV Additional District Judge, Miyapur. The petitioner alleges that the deed of conveyance presented by her before the registering authority on the above described property was refused without assigning any reason. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶14

Learned counsel on both sides state that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is covered by the order, dated 13.04.2005, in W.P.No.6778 of 2005.

¶15

For reasons alike, this Writ Petition is also disposed of with a direction to the respondents to receive the document executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property as and when presented; process and register the same in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the order of the Special Court in I.A.No.353 of 2004 in L.G.C.No.13 of 2004 shall be binding on the petitioner and her vendor, and the transaction in question shall be subject to the result of the main L.G.C. It is also made clear that in case there is any other objection for registering the document by the registering authorities, such objection(s) shall be communicated to the petitioner and her vendor within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition

¶17

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J

¶19

Date:24.04.2018 MD

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.11800 OF 2018

¶22

Dated: 24.04.2018

¶23

N. Parvathi Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Parvathi Reddy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Feroz Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. D. Sreelakshmi Vs The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Chief Secretary

Bollam Thirupathi Vs Meerpally Sager

Jami Gurunadha Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Harish Manjunath, Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue dept., State of T.S.

M/s. Cascade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary