Telangana High Court
WP/28701/2010 of Jeenath Bee Vs The STate of A.P., rep.by the District Collector, 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.28701 of 2010 BETWEEN Jeenath Bee and another. ... PETITIONERS AND The State of AP,
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.28701 of 2010
BETWEEN
Jeenath Bee and another.
AND
... PETITIONERS
The State of AP, rep. by the District Collector, Ananthapur and three others.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. K. SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following order:ORDER:
Heard both sides.
2. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the fourth respondent is notreceiving the document of sale deed for the purpose of registration on theground that he has instructions from the third respondent not to register anydocument.
3. Learned Government Pleader states that the lands in question are classified as Government lands and therefore, the action of respondents 3and 4 is justified.
4. Irrespective of the sustainability of the claim of respondents 3 and 4, I am unable to see any reason as to why the fourth respondentwould not even receive the document for the purpose of registration. Underthe Registration Act, 1908 it is open for the registering authority to refuseregistration on any of the grounds specified under the Act, but the action ofthe fourth respondent in not receiving the document is clearly unsustainable.
The writ petition, therefore, is disposed of directing the fourthrespondent to receive the document, if any, presented by the petitioners forregistration and pass appropriate orders by either registering the documentor refusing registration in accordance with the Act. There shall be no orderas to costs.
_____________________
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, JDecember 31, 2010DSK