Puchampalley, Nalgonda District v. 3 The Sub-Registrar, Champapet, R.R.Dist
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
1 S.Venkat Ram Reddy, S/o. S.Narayana Reddy, 16-11-310/6/1/5 Saleemnagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad. 2 P.Achi Reddy, S/o. Venkataram Raddy, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad. 3 M.Bhasker Reddy, S/o. Lachi Reddy, Santhoshnagar, Hyderabad. 4 R.Venugopal, S/o. R.Yadagiri, Hyderabad. 5 Ravula Krishnaiah, S/o. Veerappa, R.R.Dist. 6 Alampalli Ramakrihsna, S/o. Balijangaiah, Flot No.101, Vijayasri Sai Apts., Chaitanyapuri, R.R.Dist. 7 Alampalli Srinivas, S/o. Balijangaiah, Flot No.101, Vijayasri Sai Apts., Chaitanyapuri, R.R.Dist. 8 Dunuka Padmavathi, W/o. Devadas, Puchampalley, Nalgonda District. 9 Dunuka Devadas, W/o. Ramachandraiah, Puchampalley, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS
AND 1 The State of A.P., rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to the Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Registrar of Staps & Registration, R.R.Dist. 3 The Sub-Registrar, Champapet, R.R.Dist. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3 rd respondent in not registering and releasing petitioners sale deeds as pet G.O.Ms.No.807, Revenue (Registration- I) Dept, dt.13.10.2004 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.807, dt.13.10.2004 and consequently direct 3rd respondent to release the sale deeds of the petitioners after due registration of their respective plots by extending the benefit of judgments in W.P.No.2414/2005 and 4836/2005 dt.01.03.2005 and 11.03.2005. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE This Court at the admission stage made the following:
O R D E R:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. The petitioners state that they have purchased different extents of plots in Survey Nos.57 to 60 situated at Karmanghat village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. When the said documents were presented for registration, the respondents have refused to register the same on the ground that the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.751 dated 12-12-2001 wherein it was declared that the registration of documents of immovable properties in Survey Nos.57 to 60 of Karmanghat village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District was opposed to public policy and thus, all the Sub-Registrars were directed not to register any sale deeds in respect of the lands in the above survey numbers. However, subsequently, respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.807 dated 13-10-2004 in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Section (1) of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, denotifying the notification issued G.O.Ms.No.751 dated 12-12-2001 in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.57 to 60 of Karmanghat village.
Operative part
In the circumstances, the petitioners contend that the objections raised by the third respondent based on G.O.Ms.No.751 dated 12-12-2001 do not exist and therefore, they approached the third respondent with a request to register the sale deeds and to release the documents. However, the third respondent has not taken any steps. Hence, this writ petition. It is brought to my notice that an identical issue has been considered by this Court in W.P.No.8705 of 2002 and batch, and that the writ petitions were disposed of by common order, dated 15-12-2004, directing the respondents to release the documents presented by the petitioners therein after due registration. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to receive the documents presented by the petitioners, and to register the same without raising any objection based on G.O.Ms.No.751 dated 12-12-2001. However, it is made clear that in case the Registering Authority finds any other objection, it is open to him to raise such objection, but the same shall be communicated to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs. _____________ (G. ROHINI, J) Date: 25-04-2005 To 1 The State of A.P., rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to the Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Registrar of Staps & Registration, R.R.Dist. 3 The Sub-Registrar, Champapet, R.R.Dist. 4 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (O.U.T.) 5 Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Registration Act, 1908.
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.