When the petitioner sought to present the sale deed for registration, respondent No.2 allegedly refused to receive the same by stating that respondent No.3-Tahasildar, Avanigadda Mandal, has sent a list whereunder the said land is shown as “Government land”. This Court has repeatedly held that unless a notification is issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), declaring the property as belonging to the Government or Charitable or Religious Endowments or Wakf property, private communication sent by the revenue authorities do not bind the registering authorities. Respondent No.2 has, therefore, committed a serious illegality in refusing to receive the document sought to be presented by the petitioner based on the communication of respondent No.3. Such an action is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Respondent No.2 is bound to receive the documents that may be presented by the parties and process the same for registration. If he has any legally sustainable reasons for refusal to register the document, he shall pass an order giving reasons for such refusal under Section 71 of the Act.

WP 333 / 2013

WPSR 916 / 2013 
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
SIMHADRI PRABHAKARA RAO,,KRISHNA DIST  VSGOVT.OF AP,SCY,REV,HYD,& 2
PET.ADV. : UDAYA BHASKARRESP.ADV. : GP FOR REVENUE
SUBJECT: STAMPS & REGISTRATIONDISTRICT:  KRISHNA
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.333 of 2013

Dated:04.01.2013

 

Between:

 

Simhadri Prabhakara Rao                                              ……..Petitioner

 

and

 

Government of Andhra Pradesh

Rep.by its Secretary, Revenue, 

Hyderabad and two others                                 ………….Respondents

 

 

 

 

Counsel for the Petitioner                             : Sri Ghantasala Udaya Bhaskar
Counsel for the Respondents                 : Assistant Government Pleader
                                                              for Revenue
                                                          
                                                             


The Court made the following:-















O R D E R:
        Feeling aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in not receiving the sale deed sought to be presented by the petitioner for registration in respect of Acre 0.18 ¾ cents in R.S.No.272/1 of Avanigadda Village, Krishna District, (for short “the property”) the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.
         I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
          The petitioner pleaded that the property is a private property, which was purchased by his father’s vendor from his vendors through registered sale deeds, dated 25.11.1968 and 12.07.1971.  
The petitioner traced the history of the property as per which their predecessors in title have acquired right over the property through registered gift deed, dated 29.06.1954. 
When the petitioner sought to present the sale deed for registration, respondent No.2 allegedly refused to receive the same by stating that respondent No.3-Tahasildar, Avanigadda Mandal, has sent a list whereunder the said land is shown as “Government land”.
This Court has repeatedly held that unless a notification is issued  under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), declaring the property as belonging to the Government or Charitable or Religious Endowments or Wakf property, private communication sent by the revenue authorities do not bind the registering authorities. Respondent No.2 has, therefore, committed a serious illegality in refusing to receive the document sought to be presented by the petitioner based on the communication of respondent No.3. Such an action is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Respondent No.2 is bound to receive the documents that may be presented by the parties and process the same for registration. If he has any legally sustainable reasons for refusal to register the document, he shall pass an order giving reasons for such refusal under Section 71 of the Act.
      For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and a Mandamus shall issue to respondent No.2 to receive the document that may be presented by the petitioner in respect of the said land and process the same in terms of Section 71 of the Act. 
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.425 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.