Nagireddy Narsimha Reddy v. Govt. of A.P & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Following the above Judgment, these writ petitions are allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Smt. Zarina and others. …Petitioners
Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, and others. …Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.14009 OF 2005: Between: Nagireddy Narsimha Reddy. …Petitioner
Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, and others. …Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.22960 OF 2005: Between: Challa Jayasimha Reddy and another. Sub Registrar, Shamirpet, Ranga Reddy. WRIT PETITION No.23352 OF 2005: Between: B.Madhav Reddy. Sub Registrar, Shamirpet, Ranga Reddy, and another. …Petitioners
Respondents
Petitioners
Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.7084, 14009, 22960 AND 23352 OF 2005
COMMON ORDER:
Operative part
In these writ petitions, the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide G.O.Ms.No.810, Revenue (Endowments.II/1) is assailed as ultra vires and Department, dated 14.10.2004, unconstitutional. By the said notification, the Government of Andhra Pradesh in purported exercise of powers under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (Registration Act, for brevity) as amended by Registration (A.P.Amendment) Act, 1999 declared the registration of documents in survey Nos.59, 60, 717, 718, 723, 673, 680 and 681 of Devaryamjal village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, among others as opposed to public policy. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General) that a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.17325 of 2005 has already struck down G.O.Ms.No.810, dated 14.10.2004 observing as under. As a sequel to the above, G.O.Ms.No.810, dated 14.10.2004, is also quashed. However, it is made clear that registration of the documents of the petitioners would remain subject to the final adjudication by the Supreme Court. This would necessarily mean that if the appeal filed by the State is allowed by the Supreme Court, the registration of the documents of the petitioners shall stand automatically nullified. Following the above Judgment, these writ petitions are allowed subject to the observations of the Division Bench. No costs. ______________
(V.V.S.RAO,J)
22.06.2006
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Following the above Judgment, these writ petitions are allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Registration Act, 1908; Registration (A.P.Amendment) Act, 1999.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 22 Jun 2006. The bench was V V S RAO.
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.