Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Resondent No. 2 in not accepting the registration of document in respect of Plot No. 236 admeasuring 222.22 Sq.yards comprised in Survey No. 348/2 of Qutubullapur Village and Mandal Proper, Ranga Reddy District covered by registered Sale Deed document No. 3638 of 1997 dated 5-8-1997 of respondent No. 2 Office as arbitrary, illegal and ultravires of the Registration Act, and consequently direct the respondents herein to register the document of the petitioner for registration of the open Plot No. 236 admeasuring
222.22 Sq.yards comprised in Survey No. 348/2 of Qutubullapur Village and Mandal Proper, Ranga Reddy District Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SATYANARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court at the stage of admission made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the second respondent-Sub-Registrar, in not accepting the documents for registration, executed in respect of the plot No.236, admeasuring 222.22 square yards, situated in Sy.No.348/2 of Qutubullapur Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary and illegal. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, under instructions, states that in respect of the said land notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, (for short ‘the Act’) has been issued vide G.O.Ms.No.294, dated 09-03-2005 declaring that the registration of any documents in respect of the said land is opposed to public policy. In view of the fact that notification under Section 22-A of the Act has already been issued, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the said notification, if he is so advised. No costs. Dated: 16-03-2005 LSK ____________ G. ROHINI, J To 1 The Collector, R.R. District, at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Medchal, R.R. District. 3 Two C.Cs. to the G.P. for Revenue, High Court Buildingsd, Hyderabad. (OUT) 4 Two C.D. copies.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.