THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.6335 of 2014 Dated : 19.06.2014 Between:
B.Aswartha Reddy, S/o Bayapa Reddy, 70 yrs., Agriculture, R/o Pochanapalli Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapuram District.
.. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.6335 of 2014 ORDER :
The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the property to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Survey No.160-4E and Ac.0.60 cents in Survey No.160-4 of Hindupur Village and Mandal, Anantapur District in 2001. The sale deed was executed in his favour by M.Aswartha Reddy and his sons and the petitioner has paid full sale consideration and possession was also delivered to him. With an intention to dispose of the said property, he approached the 5th respondent on 27.02.2014 requesting him to furnish the market value and registration charges. The 5th respondent refused to furnish the market value and registration charges and insisting him to produce NOC from the concerned authorities. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is instituted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the petitioner requested for furnishing the market value, the refusal to furnish the market value and insisting for NOC is erroneous. He further contends that the said land was assigned in 1954. Therefore, there is no restraint in disposing the said land.
3. The original owners of the lands got impleaded as respondents 6 to 8. Counter- affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 6 to 8.
4. It is the case of the respondents that the land to an extent of Ac.1.80 cents in Survey No.160-4 was originally assigned in the name of Nagappa, S/o Mukkarla Nagappa. After the death of Nagappa, respondents are legally continuing the possession and enjoyment of the said property till today and no possession was granted to the petitioners. They claimed that no sale deeds were executed on 12.03.2001 and 12.04.2001 as claimed by the petitioners and alleged that those two documents are fabricated and based on those fabricated documents, property was sought to be sold.
5. As seen from the facts as contended, there is a dispute to the very sale of property claimed to have been purchased by the petitioners. The vendors to the sale deed dispute the execution of sale deed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek to furnish market value of the property which does not belong to him. Furthermore, the owners of the property, who are his alleged vendors have admitted that it is an assigned land. The Sub-Registrar refused to furnish the market value on the property on the ground that the land is an assigned land. Therefore, the decision of the registering authority in refusing to furnish the market value to the petitioner on the ground that it is an assigned land cannot be said to be erroneous. Thus, the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot be granted to the petitioner. If the petitioner has valid claim on the said property, he has to work out his remedies before appropriate forum.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date : 19.06.2014 ssp