Smt. P. Jayalakshmi v. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at saifabad, Hyderabad & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 13 Apr 2006
- Bench
- V V S RAO
Outcome
Allowed
Following the same, this writ petition is allowed directing the second
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Smt. P. Jayalakshmi AND ….PETITIONER The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at saifabad, Hyderabad. and another. ….RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 6798 OF 2006
ORDER:
Operative part
The petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent in not registering the sale deeds of the petitioner as per the circular No.E2/406/2001, dated 06.02.2001, issued by the first respondent, as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner also seeks a consequential direction to the second respondent to register the sale deeds presented by him in favour of the proposed purchaser Sri P.Brahma Reddy, S/o Chinnappa Reddy, plot No.6 in survey No.44/1 A&B situated at Munaganur village of Hayatnagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. The Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan v Basant Nahata, invalidated Section 22-A of the Rajasthan Registration Act, 1976 which is in pari materia with Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Act No.4 of 1999 (A.P.Amendment Act, for brevity). Following the same, a Division Bench of this Court comprising their Lordships the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, G.S.Singhvi, and the Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy, in an unreported Judgment in W.P.No.14099 of 2003 and batch, dated 07.12.2005, declared Section 22-A of A.P.Amendment Act as ultra vires. Following the same, this writ petition is allowed directing the second respondent to accept and register the sale deeds as and when they are presented by the petitioner. If there are any valid reasons, it shall be open to the second respondent to reject the registration after giving sufficient reasons, in which case, it is open to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908. No costs. _____________
(V.V.S.RAO,J)
13.04.2006 GJ
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Following the same, this writ petition is allowed directing the second
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Registration Act, 1908 — s. 72; Andhra Pradesh Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 13 Apr 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.