D. Raghavendra Rao v. The District Collector, Anantapur & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondent No
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M. Prasada Rao Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to receive and register the document for sale of land admeasuring Ac.0.55 cents (plot Nos.75, 76, 77, 69, 98 25-A and 36) comprised in survey No.23-1C of Kakkalapalli Village, Rudrampet Gram Panchayat, Anantapur Rural Mandal, Anantapur District, on the ground that the petitioner has not produced “No Objection Certificate” from respondent No.1 as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard Sri M. Prasada Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner averred that his father has purchased land to an extent of Acs.6.50 cents in the abovementioned survey number along with one Smt. Nagamani under registered sale deed dated 01.08.1984 and the said Nagamani has relinquished her rights in favour of father of the petitioner through document dated 08.01.1985 and that after death of his father, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioner’s mother – Smt.
D. Savithramma and that in partition, the above extent of Ac.0.55 cents out of Acs.6.50 cents fell to the petitioner’s share. When the petitioner approached respondent No.3 intending to sell the same, he has refused to receive the same on the ground that the land is assigned land and that the document cannot be registered unless the petitioner produces NOC from the revenue department. In support of his plea that the assignment does not contain any condition of prohibition of alienation, the petitioner has filed copies of letters 04.10.1995 and 13.02.2009 addressed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Anantapur and the District Collector, Anantapur, respectively to respondent No.3. A perusal of these letters would show that survey No.23-1 comprising Acs.49.01 cents of land was assigned prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.N.1142 of 1954 and as such there was no prohibition of alienation in respect of those lands.
Operative part
Indeed, the District Collector in his letter referred to above has stated that the land in survey No.23-1C admeasuring Acs.15.81 cents is among the lands which were assigned in the years 1927-28 and that as per the new list of assigned lands sent by the Tahsildar, Anantapur, the said survey number was not included in the list of assigned lands/Government lands. Accordingly, the District Collector has recommended that an extent of Ac.1.00 out of Acs.15.95 cents in survey No.23-1C can be considered for registration. In the light of the above correspondence, I am of the opinion that there is no justification for respondent No.3 not to receive and register the sale deed sought to be presented by the petitioner in respect of the land comprised in survey No.23-1C of Kakkalapalli Village. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondent No.3 is directed to receive and register the document that may be presented by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.40297 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th December, 2010 GHN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondent No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Registration Act, 1908; Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 16 Dec 2010. The bench was C V NAGARJUNA REDDY.
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.