HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.11305 of 2013 & batch

(W.P. Nos.11311, 11313, 11316, 11320, 11339, 11341, 11342, 11351, 11355, 11363, 11373, 11427, 9835, 9857, 9867, 9906 & 10036 of 2013)

Date: 16.04.2013


WRIT PETITION No.11305 of 2013

Between:

Y. Prabhavathi
… Petitioner

And

1. The District Collector,
   Anantapur, & 2 others.
                   …       Respondents


*        *        *

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.11305 of 2013 & batch

(W.P. Nos.11311, 11313, 11316, 11320, 11339, 11341, 11342, 11351, 11355, 11363, 11373, 11427, 9835, 9857, 9867, 9906 & 10036 of 2013)

COMMON ORDER:


          The grievance of the petitioners in this batch of cases is with regard to the insistence by the registering authorities on production of ‘No Objection Certificates’ (NOCs) from the Revenue Authorities as a condition precedent for receiving and registering the documents presented by them for registration in connection with immovable properties.

2.       This Court has time and again held that there is no legal sanction for the action of the Registration Authorities in insisting upon such certification from the Revenue Authorities before entertaining documents for registration.  Further, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Memo No.49938/Regn.I/A1/2012-4 dated 06.12.2012 requesting the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, to instruct all the Registering Officers in the State not to ask for NOCs from the Revenue Authorities before registration and not to act on any such NOCs.

3.       In the light of the above, it is not open to the Registering Authorities to continue to insist upon prior certification by the Revenue Authorities before receiving and registering documents pertaining to immovable properties.

4.       The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of directing the Registering Authorities concerned to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioners without insisting upon such NOCs and in the event the documents presented fulful the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, they shall register and release the documents in accordance with the due procedure.  If, however, the Registering Authority concerned is of the opinion that the document presented for registration warrants denial, he shall pass orders in writing indicating the reasons for such refusal and communicate the same to the party in accordance with Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.  Pending W.P.M.Ps in this batch of cases shall stand closed in the light of this final order.  No costs.

________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 16.04.2013
BSS/SSV

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