Telangana High Court
WP/39972/2012 of Vasagiri Naresh Vs Government of A.P., on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39972 of 2012 Dated: 28.12.2012 Between: Vasagiri Naresh .. Petitioner. and Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. Counsel for
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.39972 of 2012
Dated: 28.12.2012
Between:
Vasagiri Naresh
.. Petitioner.
and
Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
.. Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P. Kasi Nageswara Rao 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 Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action ofrespondent No.2 in proposing to register the sale deed sought to bepresented by respondent No.3.
I have heard Mr. P.Kasi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for thepetitioner, and perused the record.
The father of the petitioner was assigned the land, which is thesubject matter of this writ petition, in the year 1951. The petitioner’sfather has sold the same to respondent No.3. Sale deed was stated tohave been presented before respondent No.2 by the petitioner’s fatherand respondent No.3 for registration. The petitioner has filed this writpetition with the plea that even though the land is an assigned land,respondent No.3 has purchased the same from the petitioner’s fatherillegally and that respondent No.2 cannot register the sale deed inview of the prohibition contained under the provisions of the AndhraPradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.
The petitioner has filed a copy of the D-Form patta granted infavour of his father. Condition No.3 thereof stipulated that the assigneeshall not transfer the land in favour of British citizen or any person whois not a citizen of the Indian Princely states without the Governmentpermission. The patta does not contain any condition which prohibited transfer of the property in favour of an Indian citizen. Therefore, in theabsence of such a prohibition, the sale of the assigned land by thepetitioner’s father in favour of respondent No.3 cannot be consideredas illegal. Consequently, respondent No.3 is not restrained fromreceiving the sale deed and registering the same.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I am of the opinion that theWrit Petition is wholly misconceived and the same is accordinglydismissed.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.50751 of 2012 filed by the petitioner forinterim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
28.12.2012v v
_______________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J