the mere classification of land as Assessed Waste and the entry in the revenue record that it belongs to the Government do not determine the title and that the Registrar cannot ignore ownership of the party by giving weight to mere entries in the revenue record. In the instant case, the petitioner has traced the legal title through the document as far back as 21.5.1918 and enumerated the details relating to as many as 12 transitions through registered sale deeds commencing from 21.05.1918 up to 12.03.1995. In the face of this overwhelming documentary evidence showing that the property is a private property which changed hands through registered sale deeds on as many as 12 occasions, there is no justification for respondent No.3 to place reliance on the entry in the revenue record describing the property as Assessed Waste and refusing to receive and register the document on that basis.


WP 343 / 2013

WPSR 170 / 2013

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
VASANTHAMMA BANKAPURAM,KADAPA DIST  VSTHE DIST.COLLECTOR,KADAIA & 2 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : APARNA LAKSHMIRESP.ADV. : GP FOR REVENUE
SUBJECT: STAMPS & REGISTRATIONDISTRICT:  CUDDAPAH
FILING DATE:  02-01-2013POSTING STAGE :  ADMISSION (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION )DISPOSED ON  :  04-01-2013  ANC
REG. DATE    :   03-01-2013LISTING DATE :  04-01-2013STATUS   :  ---------
HON'BLE JUDGE(S):C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY    


HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.343 OF 2013
Dated 04-01-2013
Between :-
Vasanthamma Bankapuram                                        
……..Petitioner
And
The District Collector and Magistrate
Kadapa District and two others                              
………Respondents

 

Counsel for the Petitioner      : Sri B.V.Aparna Lakshmi
Counsel for the Respondents  : Assistant Government Pleader
                                                              for Revenue
                                                          

The Court made the following:-







O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to receive and register the document sought to be presented by the petitioner on the ground that the property in question is an Assessed Waste, as illegal and arbitrary.
At the hearing, it is agreed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that this Court in W.P.No.11332 of 2010 considered a similar action of the registering authority and by its order, dated 08.09.2010, observed that in W.P.No.6016 of 2010, this Court held that the mere classification of land as Assessed Waste and the entry in the revenue record that it belongs to the Government do not determine the title and that the Registrar cannot ignore ownership of the party by giving weight to mere entries in the revenue record.  
In the instant case, the petitioner has traced the legal title through the document as far back as 21.5.1918 and enumerated the details relating to as many as 12 transitions through registered sale deeds commencing from 21.05.1918 up to 12.03.1995. 
In the face of this overwhelming documentary evidence showing that the property is a private property which changed hands through registered sale deeds on as many as 12 occasions, there is no justification for respondent No.3 to place reliance on the entry in the revenue record describing the property as Assessed Waste and refusing to receive and register the document on that basis.
        For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondent No.3 is directed to receive the document that may be presented by the petitioner in respect of Ac.2-16 cents in Sy.No.169 of Proddatur Village and Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, and register the same, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908.
          As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.435 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
                                                    ____________________________
 JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
                             

Dated 04.01.2013

DR/Vvr

Comments

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.