the condition of prohibiting alienation of the assigned lands was introduced in the year 1958 and all the assignments made earlier thereto did not contain such condition of non alienation. Therefore the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act or Sections 3 to 5 of the Act do not operate vis-à-vis the lands that were assigned earlier to 1958, as was rightly held by this Court in the cases referred supra. For the foregoing discussion, the proceedings of the second respondent-District Collector, dated 12.08.2011 are set aside as the same are not traceable to any statutory or other legal provisions of law and consequently there shall be a direction to the fifth respondent-Sub Registrar to entertain and process the documents presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject land for registration, without insisting on submission of No Objection Certificate from the revenue authorities, in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petition shall stand disposed of as infructuous in consequence. There shall be no order as to costs.”


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

WRIT APPEAL No.248 of 2013

 

Date: 22.02.2013

 
Between:

A. Chowdi Reddy & others.
… Appellants

And

The District Collector, Chittoor District
& others.
… Respondents








                                                                         







This Court made the following:





                                                         


                                           
                                           


                                                      
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

WRIT APPEAL No.248 of 2013

 


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

            Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
            This appeal with leave is directed against the order, dated 25.07.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.No.22653 of 2012.
            The Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the 4th respondent in refusing to receive the documents presented by the writ petitioners for registration of an extent of Ac.2.78 cents in Sy.No.521-1 situated at Bandameeda Kammapalle Village of Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 4th respondent to entertain the document for registration of the above said land and to release the same.
            The Hon’ble Single Judge, after hearing the parties and without going into the merits of the case, disposed of the Writ Petition directing the 4th respondent to receive the document to be produced by the writ petitioners in respect of the land in question and process the same for registration.  Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the third parties by obtaining leave of this Court.
            Learned counsel for the appellants contended that though they are not parties to W.P.No.22653 of 2012, they also own lands in the same survey number i.e., Sy.No.521-1 to the extent of Ac.4.37 ½ cents and that an order has already been passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.No.2380 of 2012 on 20.07.2012, operative portion thereof reads as follows:
            “From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that 
the condition of prohibiting alienation of the assigned lands was introduced in the year 1958 and all the assignments made earlier thereto did not contain such condition of non alienation.  Therefore the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act or Sections 3 to 5 of the Act do not operate vis-à-vis the lands that were assigned earlier to 1958, as was rightly held by this Court in the cases referred supra.

            For the foregoing discussion, the proceedings of the second respondent-District Collector, dated 12.08.2011 are set aside as the same are not traceable to any statutory or other legal provisions of law and consequently there shall be a direction to the fifth respondent-Sub Registrar to entertain and process the documents presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject land for registration, without insisting on submission of No Objection Certificate from the revenue authorities, in accordance with law.

            The writ petition is accordingly allowed.  The miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petition shall stand disposed of as infructuous in consequence.  There shall be no order as to costs.”

            Since the aforesaid order in favour of the appellants herein operates so far as the land claimed by them is concerned, we dispose of this appeal clarifying that the impugned order in W.P.No.22653 of 2012 will not stand in the way of the appellants with regard to order, dated 20.07.2012, passed in their favour in W.P.No.2380 of 2012.  No costs.



______________________________
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, CJ




__________________________
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

Date: 22.02.2013

ES

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.

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.

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