Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent Sub-
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Smt.Y.Siva Lakshmi Kumari, W/o.Y.V.Nageswara Rao, R/o.12-95, Adarshnagar Opp. I.D.P.L.Colony, R.R.District. AND ..... PETITIONER
1 The Collector, R.R.District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office Medchal, R.R.District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not accepting the registration of document in respect of Plot No.81 covered under registered document No.3751/1997 of Respondent No.2 office to an extent of 122 Sq. Yds., comprised in Sy.No.129, 140 and 141 situated at Ramreddy Nagar, Qutbullapur Village and Mandal proper, R.R. District, as arbitrary and illegal and ultravires the Registration Act, and consequently direct the respondents herein to register the document of the petitioner for registration of the land covered by Plot No.81, admeasuring 122 sq. in Sy.No.129, 140 and 141, situated at Ramreddynagar, yds., comprised Qutbullapuram Village and Mandal proper, Ranga Reddy District. For the Petitioner: MR.A.SATYANARAYANA REDDY, Advocate. For the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court at the admission stage made the following :
ORDER:
The petitioner claims to be owner of the Plot No.81, admeasuring 122 square yards in Survey Nos. 129, 140 and 141 of Ramreddy Nagar, Qutbullapur village of R.R. District and when he approached the second respondent Sub-Registrar for registration of the said plot in favour a prospective purchaser, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the same on account of a direction from the first respondent- District Collector that the land in Survey No.141 is declared as Government land, and insisted for ‘No objection Certificate’ from the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned for registration. Seeking a direction to the respondents to register the document in respect of the property in question, the petitioner filed this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and admitted to by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that no Notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 has been issued by the Government prohibiting the transfer of the land in question.
Operative part
They also submitted that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in W.P. No.1953 of 2002, dated 11-12-2003, wherein it was held thus:
The Registration Act does contain a provision enabling the government to prohibit transfer in respect of any lands. Such prohibition, however, is to be imposed by issuing a notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
In view of the above proposition of law and having regard to the fact that no Notification as contemplated under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 has been issued by the Government prohibiting transfer of the land held by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent Sub- Registrar, Medchal, R.R. District to process and deal with the document submitted by the petitioner for registration of the property in question in favour of a prospective purchaser, as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act.
It is made clear that this order does not preclude the Government to issue any Notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 03-12-2004 Svv To 1 The Collector, R.R.District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office Medchal, R.R.District. 3 Two CCs. to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, A.P., Hyderabad (OUT). 4 Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent Sub-
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Registration Act, 1908; Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 03 Dec 2004. The bench was N V RAMANA.
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.