Telangana High Court
CC/1735/2013 of Kishan Rao, Vs Sri Seetharam, on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1735 of 2013 Date:30.12.2013 Between: Kishan Rao ... Petitioner And Sri Seetharam, Sub-Registrar, Stamp & Registration Dept., Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, And another. ... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. P.Laxma Reddy Counsel
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.1735 of 2013
Date:30.12.2013
Between:
Kishan Rao ... PetitionerAndSri Seetharam,Sub-Registrar,Stamp & Registration Dept.,Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District,And another.
... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. P.LaxmaReddy Counsel for the Respondents : AGP for Revenue The Court made the following:
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.
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience oforder, dated 01.04.2013, in C.C.No.421 of 2013.
The petitioner has filed a writ petition, which was treated as acontempt case suo-moto by this Court, and the same was assignedC.C.No.421 of 2013 for the reason that in Raavi Satish vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others[[1]],thisCourt has held that theRegistering authority cannot refuse to receive the sale deed forregistration and that if the authority has any reason to refuseregistration, it shall pass an appropriate order under Section 71 of theRegistration Act, 1908. As this procedure was not followed, this Courthas converted the writ petition into a contempt case. The contemptcase was disposed of by this Court by order dated 01.04.2013 on theassurance given by the Sub-Registrar in the Court to the effect that hehas prepared a valuation report and kept the same ready to be given tothe petitioner and that if and when the petitioner approaches, he willregister the document. The present contempt case is filed alleging thatthe undertaking given by the Sub-Registrar in C.C.No.421 of 2013 hasnot been complied with.
The 1[st] respondent has filed a counter affidavit, which has notbeen placed by the Registry before the Court. However, this Court hasperused the copy of the counter affidavit furnished by the counsel forthe parties. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the 1[st] respondenthas succeeded to the previous Sub-Registrar, who appeared beforethis Court and gave assurance that he will register the document, that on verification of the document and the record, he came to know thatSy.No.777 is notified as a wakf property in the District Gazette by theAndhra Pradesh Wakf Board and that therefore the document is keptpending for registration.
Mr. P.Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, hasstated that the land of the petitioner has been sub-divided asSy.No.777/AA and that, therefore, the said Gazette notification doesnot cover the said land.
The issue in this contempt case is whether the respondentshave caused deliberate violation of the order of this Court or not. ThisCourt in Raavi Satish (supra) held that if the land belongs to anyreligious institution, the Registering authority shall not refuse to receivethe document, but it shall pass appropriate order refusing to registerthe document, if it is satisfied that the land cannot be registered.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submittedthat since the document is kept pending for registration, it could not bereturned with the rejection order.
In these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of theopinion that the respondents have not committed wilful violation of theorder of this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since thepurchaser has backed out of the transaction, the 1[st] respondent maybe directed to return the document to the petitioner.
Having regard to this request, the 1[st] respondent is directed toreturn the document to the petitioner.
Subject to the above direction, the Contempt Case is closed.
30.12. 2013
v v
________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
[1]2013 (2) ALD 1