Disposed

Smt.Ragi Dhanalakshmi v. The State of Telangna

Telangana HC16 Sept 2022WP/8342/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal of a Sub-Registrar to accept a sale deed. The court directed the authority to receive and register the document subject to compliance with the Registration Act and Stamp Act.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 4 directed to receive, process, and register the sale deed subject to compliance with the Act and Stamp Act.

Smt.Ragi Dhanalakshmi Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA:AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF^SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{A.ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶5

WR|T PETlTlo N^t lSi_q-U?_9E292

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt.Raoi Dhanalakshmi, Wo^{Veera Cahari, Age. 48 Years, Occ House Wife,} nyo, u.[to. l8-638, Plot^{No.304 SanthoshNagar, tvliryalaguda,Nalgonda'} Dist Telangana

¶8

..PETraoNER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangna, Rep by^{it's PringipalSecretary (Revenue Department} Stamps and Registration) Secreta2atiat^Hyderabad

¶11

The Commissioner and lnspector'General,^{(Stamps and Registration) at} t\4ozamjahi Market Hyderabad

¶12

The District Registrar, Nalgonda^District.

¶13

The Sub Registrar, Nakrekal,^NalgonddDist

¶14

,..RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the^{constitutionof lndia praying. that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an order, direction^{particularlyone in the nature of writ of} Mandamus or any other appropriate^{writ declare the action of the respondentNo.} 4 to rejected to receive the draft sdle^{deedfor registration named propertyis} illegal, arbitrary and violating the^{naturaljustice GoNSEQUENTLYdirectthe} respondent NO. 4 to receive the sale^{deed Oated.T -2-2022 and to accept the} registration of the same made submitted^{by the petitioner.}

¶16

IAN o:1^{OF 2022}

¶17

Petition under^{section151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High courl may be pleased to direct} ir,u r"rponO"nt^{NO. 4 to receive the sale deed Daled.T -2-2022 and to accept the} i"girt;tion^{of the same made submitted by the petitioner pendingdisposal the} above^writ Petition.

¶18

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRIG.L.NARASIMHARAO}

¶19

Counsel^{forthe Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶20

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITIO N No.8342 of 2022

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the present Writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of aclmission.

¶24

Seeking to. direct the respondent No.4 to receive, register arid release the subject document presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶25

¶26

Leamed Government Pleader has fairly stated that the official respondents will follow the procedure contemplated under Section 71 of the Regisrration Act, 1908 (for shor!^,the Acf).

¶27

Section 71 of the Act reads as follows:

¶28

Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded. - (1) Every Sub-Registrdr rcfusing to register a document, except on the grountl th.rt the property to which it relates is not situated within his sub-district shall make an order of refusal and recordecl his rr'asons for such order in his Book No.? and endorse the u orcls "registration refused" on the documenq and, on applic.rtion made by an1. person exc,cuting or ctaiming under the dc, ume'nt, slr.rll, rvithout payment and unnecessary delay, give hint a co1.rv of the reasoru so recordcd.

(2) No registering officer shall accept {or regishation a document so endorsed unless a:rd until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered.

¶34

In .iew of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader coupled with the provisions of Section 71 of the Act, the lVrit Petition is disposed of directing the Registering Authority to receive, process and register the subject documeng subiect to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Act and lnc'lian Stamp Act, 1899. lt will be open to the Registering Authority to refuse to register the document presented before him, if he has any other objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and communicate the said decision to the petitioners.

¶35

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if *y, shall stand

¶36

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

SD/.T.KRISHNA^KU . DEPUTYRE^GIS

¶38

¶39

//TRUE COPY// SECTIO FFICER

¶40

to'',. ,n" Commissioner and lnspector General' (Stamps and Registration) at ' Hrforrmirni N/larket HYderabad z inu OiJiri"t^{Registrai, NalgondaDistrict'-..}

¶41

a. +ii; 5;;'^{R;gliirar, t'tat<re(al'Nalgo3pgDisJ} ; 5;;"cC b-Sni^{e .L.iiAneSirrr*A nno' novocate roPUCl} 5. Two^{CCs to the GP t;; il;;;;e'Hign court tor thd State of Telangana'} tourl

¶42

Two^{C.D CoPies}

¶43

One^{SPare CoPY} MRC PS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1610912022

ORDER

WP.No.8342^{of 2022}

1 f: S'iAI€ o
{ (.
r <br>.) 2 2 t|ili 2$I2
t.'// {
--i\i

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

oq (,P["e

¶52

¶53

Smt.Ragi Dhanalakshmi v. The State of Telangna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Ragi Dhanalakshmi v. The State of Telangna

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 Chandra Sekhar, Hyderabad Vs Secy, Panchayat Raj Dept., Hyd and 3 Others

Mrs. Pooja Joshi, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mr.Uppu Shekar Vs State of Telangana

Sandrugu Swamy Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

Sri. Devu Madhukar Reddy and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

V. Vaidyanathan Vs The State of Telangana