S.Vemanath Reddy v. The Sub Registrar, Kadapa District & 3 others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Petition is allowed
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Therefore, for the same reasons as contained in the order dated 02.07.2010 in W.P.No.6016 of 2010, this Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.4 is directed to receive the document presented by the petitioner and process the same for registration in accordance with law. No…
Judgment
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4, in not registering the document presented by the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.26.41 cents in Sy.Nos.657 and 655 of Vempalli village and mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary.
At the hearing, it is agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties that W.P.No.6016 of 2010 pertaining to the property situated in Sy.Nos.1969/2, 1972, 1969/1B and 1971 of Doddipalli Village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District, was disposed of by this Court by detailed order dated 02.07.2010. It is further agreed that as the reason for refusal to register the document in this Writ Petition is similar to the one raised in the above said Writ Petition, the same cannot be sustained in the light of the order passed therein.
Therefore, for the same reasons as contained in the order dated 02.07.2010 in W.P.No.6016 of 2010, this Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.4 is directed to receive the document presented by the petitioner and process the same for registration in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ________________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J 21st January, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within one week B/o Tsy/MR
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is allowed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 21 Jan 2011. The bench was ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
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.