Telangana High Court
WP/28408/2008 of Neela Venkatesh Vs The Joint Sub-Registrar, on 29 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 28408 of 2008 Between: 1 Neela Venkatesh S/o. Gandaiah R/o. Kongarkalan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKARWRIT PETITION NO : 28408 of 2008
Between:
1 Neela Venkatesh S/o. Gandaiah
R/o. Kongarkalan Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R. District.
2 Abbanabpoina Anjaiah S/o. Ramaiah
R/o. Thaskanigudem H/o. Idikuda Village, Chandur, Nalgonda District.
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 The Joint Sub-Registrar, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
2 The Tahsildar, Munugodu Mandal, Nalgonda District.
3 Gurram Iddaiah S/o. Venkaiah
R/o. Munugodu Mandal & Mandal, Nalgonda District.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of therespondent No.1 in refusing to register the sale deed in favour ofChenagoni Naresh Babu, S/o. Anjaiah Goud, which was assignedpending Doc.No.P.No.353/2007 executed in the capacity of Agreement ofSale-cum-General Power of Attorney of original pattedar namely GurramIddaiah S/o.Venkaiah in respect of land in Sy.No.360/ admeasuring 4acres 13 guntas, situated at Munugode Village and Mandal, NalgondaDistrict, basing on a letter addressed by the Respondent No.2 dt.01.04.2008 that the land in question is recorded as government land ischallanged in the present writ petition as being arbitrary, illegal andviolative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India,apart from being violative of provisions of the Indian Registration Act andconsequently direct the respondent No.1 to register the pending DocumentNo.353/2007 presented by the petitioenrs without reference to the letteraddressed by the respondent No.2 dt. 1.4.2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following :
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKARW.P.No.28408 of 2008
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 questioning the refusal to register adocument bearing P.No.353 of 2007.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have executedregistered sale deed dated 31-07-2007, which was assigned pendingDocument No.P.No.353 of 2007 with respect to Ac.4.13 guntas in Sy.No.360, situated at Munugode village and Mandal, Nalgonda District,in favour of purchasers. The Mandal Revenue Officer, under his letterNo.D/799/2008, dated 01-04-2008, has informed the 1st respondent-Joint Sub Registrar, Nalgonda, that the entire Sy. No.360 admeasuringAc.26.03 guntas is shown as Government Poramboke as per the‘Khasra Pahani’ entry. The petitioners allege that due to the saidletter, the 1[st] respondent has refused to register the document. However, they have not been given the refusal endorsement.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged severalcontentions based upon Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
5. It is to be noticed that an order of refusal by the 1[st]respondent is clearly appealable under Section 72 of the Indian StampAct and as such without going into any other questions, I deem itappropriate to relegate the petitioners to the remedy of appeal wherethe petitioners are at liberty to raise all contentions which they wish tocontend against the said refusal endorsement.
6. This Writ petition is therefore disposed of permitting thepetitioner to prefer an appeal before the competent authority underSection 72 of the Indian Stamp Act, within one week from today. Onsuch appeal being filed, the appellate authority shall consider thesame and dispose of the same in accordance with law. No costs.
KVR
______________________
29[th] December 2008