Allowed

Neeradi Savitha v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Dec 2022WP/31573/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Tahasildar's refusal to receive a sale deed for agricultural land acquired under a Land Purchase Scheme was illegal and arbitrary. The Court directed the Tahasildar to accept the document and complete the registration process within two weeks. Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 was cited.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to present the document for registration; the respondent Tahasildar is directed to receive and complete the process within two days from pre

Neeradi Savitha Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3'1573 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Neeradi Savitha, Wo Neeradipochaiah Age: 32, Occ. Asha worker, R/o.H.No.1-13, Ambam Village, Yedipallymandal, Nizamabad District - 503235.

¶10

2 CH. Manoj, S/o. Kawar singh Age:- 38, Occ:- Home Guard, R/o. H.No :- 4-6618, Shakk arnagar, Bodhan lvlandal, Nizamabad Drstrict - 503185.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary. Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶14

2 The Tahasildar, MRO Office Yedapally Mandal, Yedapally(M), Nizamabad(Dis0-503202

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in refusing to register my land on survey no 51211012 to an extent of 30 guntas in Ambam (y) village of yedapally Mandal, Nizamabad with the petitioner no 2 for slot booked by me on16-07-2022lo be executed on 20-07-2022 without assigning any reason and either the land is not under the Prohibitory order or there was no notification issued by the district collector Nizamabad uls 22-A of Registration Act 1908, as such the Tahasildar refuse to register my land survey no 512t1012 in Ambam^(y), yedapally Mandal, Nizamabad extent of 30 guntas with Petitioner no 2 is illegal, arbitrary violative of principle of natural .justice and also against ARTICLES 14, 19,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the

¶17

Respondent no 2 to receive and register the land of the petitioner in land survey no 512110/2 in Ambam (y), yedapally Mandal, Nizamabad extent of 30 guntas vide digital passbook no T1126001098 to the Petitioner no 2 as per the slot booking APPLICATION NO - 2200699686

¶18

lA NO: 1 Ot: 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent no 2 to receive and register the land of the petitioner in land survey no 51211012 in Ambam (y), yedapally Mandal, Nizamabad extent of 30 guntas vide digital passbook no T1 126001098 to the petitioner no 2 as fer the slot booking APPLICATION NO - 2200699686 pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P" LALITHA KAMESH

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 31573 of 2022

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government Pleader for Starhps and Registration appearing for respondents.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.l is the absolute owner and possessor of iand admeasuring Ac.0.3O guntas situated in survey No.S12/ 10/2 of Ambam $) Village of Yedapally Mandal, Nizambad District by acquiring the same through gift deed dated 0 1. l2.2O2O executed by her mother-inlaw namely N.Sayamma W/o. N.Pentaiah under the gift deed registered on 07 .12.2020 vide document No.50/2020. Further, the case of the petitioners is that her mother-in-law acquired the said property under a registered sale deed dated O1.O4.1997 vide document No.919/ 1997 under a Land Purchase Scheme from Nizam Sugar Limited, Shakkar Nagar, Bodhan Mandal. The said extent of land is also stated to have been noted in the name of the petitioner No. 1 in revenue records and she was also issued digital pattadar passbook vide No.Tl 12600 10980 with Katta No.6O282 in respect of said extent of land. When the

¶27

¶28

¶29

petitioner intended to execute the sale deed in respect of said extent of land and approached the respondent No.2 herein by submitting the online application No.220OO699686 and also booked slot for registration of the said sale deed, the respondent No.2 herein refused to receive the said document on the ground that the subject property was purchased under the Land Purchase Scheme and hence he cannot process the document for registration.

¶30

Aggricved by the said action of the respondent No.2, the petitioners approached this Court by frling the present writ petrtron

¶31

A perusal of the sale deed executed by the Nizam Sugar Limited in favou.r of the mother - in -law of the petitioner No.1 shows that absolute rights of subject property transferred in favour of the mother-in-law of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No. t herein succeeded to the sarne under registered gift deed. The said property is also updated in the name of the petitioner No. 1 in the revenue records in Dharani Portal. In the absence of' any condition in the sale deed executed in the name of the mothcr - in -law of the petitioner No.l to restraining her from alicnating the subject property, the action of respondent No.2 in

¶32

¶33

--r/

¶34

refusing to receive the document sought^{to be presentedby the} petitioner No. 1 through application No. 22000699686^and refusing to process the same is totally illegal and arbitrary.

¶35

I \

¶36

As per Section 71 of the Re$istration Act,^{19O8, the} respondent No.2 who is competent to entertain^{registration of} document in respect of agricultural land^{is under obligation to} receive and process the documents in accordance^{with law.}

¶37

I I

¶38

Under the circumstances, this Court does not lind^any justification on the part of respondent No.2 in refusing to receive the sale deed that is sought to be^presented by^the petitioners in respect of land admeasuring Ac.O.30^guntas situated in Survey No.512l lO 12.

¶39

07 . [n the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed^of permitting the petitioners to present the document for registration before the respondent No.2, and as and when^such document is presented by the petitioner No.l in^{respect of} subject property, the respondent No.2, and shall receive^the same and complete the process within a^period ol two⁽⁰²⁾ weeks from the date of presentation of the said^{document by thc} petitioners subject to the said document complying with^the

¶40

¶41

-q -. ?i

¶42

requirements of Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamps Act, 1892.

¶43

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stands

closed. No costs.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR ASSISTANT REGIS

¶49

SECTION OFFICER

¶50

¶51

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Tel'angana.

¶52

' IL?I1"Jl11liffi3rBf'' Yedapar rv Ma nd a r' Yedapa I rv(M )'

¶53

One CC to SRI P. IAL|THA KAMESH, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

4 Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGTSTRATTON High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUIj

¶55

Two CD Copies

BB LSd

HIGH GOURT

DATED: 1511212022

ORDER

W.P.No.31573 of 2022

a ltr E 5T4?.6 N
t-(<br>(<
z
1..
t) [ 3 Jr|l 2ffn
..*
.

¶62

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶63

WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

b
s<br><br>

Neeradi Savitha v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeradi Savitha v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Y. Patil Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.V.N. Singamohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

G. Gopichand and 3 others Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Sri Mamilla Bheem Yadav Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Bakka Lakshmi Vs State of Telangana

M/s Ssv Creations Vs The State of Telangana and 3others