Allowed

Smt. Karri Pushpa , Mamatha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Oct 2018WP/21262/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order in a writ petition challenging the refusal of registration officials to register sale transactions due to a letter from the Urban Development Authority. The Court allowed the petition by expressly following a prior order of this Court dealing with identical facts and directions.

What did the court decide?

The respondent No. 2 is directed to receive and register the documents presented by the petitioner, subject to compliance with the Act and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Smt. Karri Pushpa , Mamatha Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

W.P.NO.21262 OF 2018

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

Aggrieved by the action of respondents 2 and 3 – registration officials, in not registering the sale transactions in respect of the subject plots of the petitioners, on the basis of the impugned letter issued by the 4^th respondent – Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority in Rc.No.5973/ 09/ 1-1 dated 12.04.2012, the present writ petition is filed.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this court in W.P.No.23217 of 2012 dated 12.12.2012 and hence the same may be disposed of in terms of the said order.

¶6

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and Government Pleader for Assignment, submits that petitioners have to first present the documents for registration and without doing so, they cannot complain that respondents 2 and 3 are not registering the documents in question. However, they do not dispute the order relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶7

A perusal of the order dated 12.12.2012 in W.P.No.23217 of 2012 goes to show that when the Sub Registrar refused to entertain and register the document presented by the petitioner therein by virtue of the impugned letter of the 4^th respondent dated 12.04.2012, this court disposed of the writ petition as under:

¶8

“ For the above-mentioned reasons, respondent No.2 is directed to receive the document that may be presented by the petitioner in respect of the above-mentioned properties and register the same subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Act and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is made clear that mere registration of the documents would not absolve the

¶9

liability of the petitioner and his successors-in-interest of legal action arising out of the enquiry that is stated to be pending with respondent No.3.

¶10

Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is allowed.”

¶11

In view of the order of this court dated 12.12.2012 in W.P.No.23217 of

¶12

2012, and for the reasons alike, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the above directions.

¶13

Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No

¶14

costs.

¶15

------------------------------------------ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J

¶16

DATE:24—10—2018 AVS

Smt. Karri Pushpa , Mamatha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Karri Pushpa , Mamatha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.a.Razak Vs State of Telangana

Mirza Mujahid Baig, Vs The State of Telangana

V. Purnachandra Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Somanatha Kshetram/Somanatha Maharshiji, Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue dept., State of T.S.

Gudivada Anantha Ramulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mallela Edwin Bhaskar Vs The State of A.P.