Telangana High Court
WP/11559/2015 of U. Venkata Naga Manojnath Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.11559 OF 2015 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner questions the action of the Sub-Registrar, Kanchikacherla Mandal, Krishna District, the 2nd respondent, in not
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKARWRIT PETITION No.11559 OF 2015
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:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue.
The petitioner questions the action of the Sub-Registrar,Kanchikacherla Mandal, Krishna District, the 2[nd] respondent, in notreceiving the sale deed for registration.
The case of the petitioner is that he approached the 2[nd] respondent to register his document, but the 2[nd] respondentrefused to receive the same assigning reasons that the landadmeasuring Ac.0.50 cents in Survey No.211/2A of GaniathkurVillage, Kanchikacherla Mandal, Krishna District, is under prohibitedlist given by the Revenue Authorities of Kanchikacherla Mandal,Krishna District.
The issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered bythe decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1052 of 2012and batch, dated 09.07.2013 and the operative portion reads as follows:
“A perusal of the guidelines of the scheme, which arerelied upon by the appellants’ counsel, does not containany clause prohibiting alienation of the land providedunder the scheme. It is not even the case of respondentNos.4 and 5 that there is any prohibition imposedsubsequent to the formulation of the scheme. If theobject of the scheme is to provide agricultural land to thebeneficiaries with an intention to provide permanentincome generating asset, the authorities ought to havetaken steps at the time of formulating the scheme itself bymentioning some clauses of prohibition of alienation ofthe lands provided under the scheme. Admittedly, thereis no such condition of prohibition imposed even by thisdate. In the absence of such prohibition, the beneficiaries are entitled to sell the land. Hence, we areunable to accept the said contention of the learnedcounsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5-appellants herein.
In the above circumstances, we are of the consideredview that the learned single Judge, while following theorders of the Division Bench of this Court, has rightly directed respondent No.3-Sub-Registrar to register the documents presented by thepetitioners without treating that Section 22-A of the Actapplies to the said land. We see no reason to interferewith the impugned orders.
Accordingly, all the writ appeals are dismissed.”
The said Division Bench decision in turn had followed orders ofanother Division Bench in W.A.No.185 of 2012 and batch, dated15.02.2012. Based on the decisions of the Division Bench, severalother Writ Petitions, being W.P.Nos.21322 and 21316 of 2012, dated13.07.2012, with identical grievance were also disposed of.
In view of the same, merely on the reasons assigned by theTahsildar, the registering authorities cannot stop the registrations.Therefore, there shall be similar direction in this Writ Petition also.
Accordingly, the 2[nd] respondent is directed to receive andprocess the document presented by the petitioner in compliance withthe Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act and register and releasethe same in favour of the claimant, if it is found otherwise.
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petitionshall stand closed.
____________________________
VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J31.12.2015KH