Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. - a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not receiving and registering the document sought to be presented by the petitioner in respect of plot bearing No.LIG-22 in survey No.164 of Simhapuri layout, Vepagunta Village, Visakhapatnam District as illegal and arbitrary.- In the light of the permission granted by the VUDA which sold the plot to the petitioner, it is not permissible for respondent No.3 to refuse to receive and register the sale deed sought to be presented by the petitioner. Hence, a mandamus shall issue to respondent No.3 to receive the sale deed from the petitioner and process the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.

WP 147 / 2013WPSR 218925 / 2012
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
SRI KAMINENI HAD KRISHNA RAO, KRISHNA DIST  VSCOMMISSIONER & INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION & STAMPS
PET.ADV. : SUDHA RANIRESP.ADV. : GP FOR REVENUE
SUBJECT: STAMPS & REGISTRATIONDISTRICT:  VISAKHAPATNAM
FILING DATE:  31-12-2012POSTING STAGE :  ADMISSION (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION )DISPOSED ON  :  03-01-2013  ANC
REG. DATE    :   02-01-2013LISTING DATE :  03-01-2013STATUS   :  ---------
HON'BLE JUDGE(S):C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY    

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.147 of 2013

Dated 03.01.2013
Between:

Sri Kamineni Hari Krishna Rao
          …Petitioner

And


The State of A.P., represented by its Commissioner and Inspector General
of Registration & Stamps, Hyderabad and others
          …Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Smt.M.S.V.S.Sudha Rani



Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

 

The Court made the following:





 ORDER:                           
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not receiving and registering the document sought to be presented by the petitioner in respect of plot bearing No.LIG-22 in survey No.164 of Simhapuri layout, Vepagunta Village, Visakhapatnam District as illegal and arbitrary.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 

It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the abovementioned plot was allotted to him by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) in the year 1991 and the same was registered in his favour on 18.10.1995.   When the petitioner sought to sell the said plot, he approached the VUDA for permission as per the terms of the sale deed. Accordingly, the VUDA by its proceedings vide Plot No.LIG-22/S.P/F4 dated 18.10.2012 granted permission to the petitioner subject to his payment of Rs.40,186/-.  It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that when he approached respondent No.3 for receiving the sale deed, he has refused to receive the same without giving any reasons.

In the light of the permission granted by the VUDA which sold the plot to the petitioner, it is not permissible for respondent No.3 to refuse to receive and register the sale deed sought to be presented by the petitioner. 

Hence, a mandamus shall issue to respondent No.3 to receive the sale deed from the petitioner and process the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.

The Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.196 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.



________________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J


3rd January, 2013                  
SKA/GHN 














































THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY










































WRIT PETITION No.147 of 2013

Dated 03.01.2013
SKA/GHN



Comments

  1. I AM FACING SAME PROBLEM. I GOT SALE PERMISSION FROM VUDA FOR PLOT LIG-5 IN OCT 2012. i purchsed plot in simphapuri layout in 1991 and registered in 1st Feb 1992. I am not able to sell this plot due to registration denied.

    Please post the information if any on this.
    Thanks
    Srinivas Dantu
    9177690690

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.