Telangana High Court
WP/40145/2012 of S. Pamanna Vs Government of A.P., rep. by its Prindpal Secretary, on 31 December 2012
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.40145/2012 Date : 31-12-2012 Between: S. Pamanna .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Registration & Stamps Department Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Tenneti Babuji
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
W.P.No.40145/2012
Date : 31-12-2012
Between:
S. Pamanna ..Petitioner
And
Government of Andhra Pradesh,
represented by its Principal Secretary,Registration & Stamps DepartmentHyderabad and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Tenneti BabujiCounsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleaderfor 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 declarethe action of respondent No.2 in not receiving the sale deedfor registration in respect of house plot bearing No.1,admeasuring 168 x 38 ft. in Survey No.265 of Budhawarpet,Kurnool City, Kurnool District as illegal and arbitrary.
At the hearing, Sri Tenneti Babuji, learned Counsel forthe petitioner, submitted that the only ground on whichrespondent No.2 has declined to receive the document forsale sought to be presented by the petitioner for registrationis that the land is an assigned land. He relied upon aDivision Bench judgment of this Court in Letter sent from Plot No.338, etc. v. Collector & District Magistrate[[1]]and submitted that where the assignments were made oncollection of market value, the provisions of the AndhraPradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 9 of1977 does not apply.
In my opinion, when a document is presented torespondent No.2 for registration, it is imperative for him toreceive the same and if he has any legally sustainableobjection for refusal to register, he has to pass an order under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘theAct’). The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted thatthe petitioner will be satisfied if respondent No.2 is directedto receive the document and pass an appropriate order, ifhe finds that the document is not registerable.
In the light of the above submissions and position oflaw as discussed above, the Writ Petition is disposed of withthe direction to respondent No.2 to receive the documentsought to be presented by the petitioner and takeappropriate action in accordance with the provisions of theAct. If respondent No.2 has reason to refuse to register thesaid document, he shall pass appropriate order underSection 71 of the Act and communicate the same to thepetitioner within a period of two weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.50960 of 2012, filed by thepetitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
Date : 31-12-2012
AM
________________________
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
[1]2008 (5) ALD 626 (DB)