Telangana High Court
WP/42564/2015 of G.Brahmananda Rao, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep.by its PrI.Secretary, on 30 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.42564 of 2015 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his representation under communication, dated 23.11.2015, Ex.P8, of the Joint
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKARWRIT PETITION No.42564 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 is aggrieved by rejection of his representationunder communication, dated 23.11.2015, Ex.P8, of the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Prashanthi Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, the 3[rd] respondent. The petitioner had filed a Protest Petition objectingregistration of the documents particularly, Document No.8349 of 2007pending before the 3[rd] respondent and requested him and the Sub-Registrar, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District, the 4[th] respondent, to stop registration by asserting that he is the owner ofthe land and unauthorised person should not be dealt with the saidland by registering unauthorised document. The said request wasrejected on the ground that the Registration Department cannot stopregistration merely on the objections/letters of the third parties. Thesaid communication is questioned in this Writ Petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue, I am unable to see any power of theregistering authority to stop registration merely because there is anobjection by a person claiming to be the owner of the land. Theregistering authority has to comply with the requirements of the IndianStamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908 and cannot takecognizance of the third party objections. Hence, I do not see anyillegality in the impugned communication.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be noorder as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
30.12.2015
KH
___________________________
VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J