Telangana High Court
WP/31858/2010 of T. Pedda Muridappa Vs The District Registrar, on 31 December 2010
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.31858 of 2010 BETWEEN T. Pedda Muridappa and others. ... PETITIONERS AND The State
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.31858 of 2010
BETWEEN
T. Pedda Muridappa and others.
AND
... PETITIONERS
The State of AP, rep. by the District Collector, Ananthapur and another.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. NARSIMHULU PARISE
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following order:ORDER:
Heard both sides.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in this case also is that thesettlement deed proposed by the petitioners is not being received by thesecond respondent for registration.
3. For the reasons already mentioned in WP.No.28701 of 2010 disposedof today, I am unable to see any substance in the second respondent not receiving the settlement deed itself. It is open for him to either register orrefuse to register the document in accordance with the Registration Act,1908 but refusal to receive the document is neither valid nor sustainable.
4. Petitioner’s counsel also has brought to my notice a similar viewtaken by this Court in WP.No.31132 of 2010 dated 10.12.2010.
In view of the above, the writ petition, therefore, is disposed of directingthe second respondent to receive the document, if any, presented by thepetitioners for registration and pass appropriate orders by either registeringthe document or refusing registration in accordance with the Act. There shallbe no order as to costs.
_____________________
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J