Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Telangana
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

B Narasimhulu vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others

High Court Of Telangana|12 June, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16034 OF 2014 DATE: 12-06-2014 Between:
B.Narasimhulu S/o.B.Chandrachari, aged about 40 years, R/o.19-8-18/4, Dasarimattam, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and another.
--PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary Revenue Department (Registration), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
--RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16034 of 2014 O R D E R:
The case of the petitioners is that the land to an extent of Ac.
26.00 cents which was covered by Survey No.74/7 of Akkarampalli belongs to Government land and the same was alienated to Tirupati Urban Development Authority. The Tirupati Urban Development Authority has handed over the said land to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (for short ‘the APIIC’) for the purpose of establishment of Auto Nagar. The APIIC divided the land into plots. The father of 1st petitioner was allotted plot No.54 and as he died, the 1st petitioner succeeded the said plot. The plot No.38 was allotted to the 2nd petitioner. As the petitioners intend to register the property in its name, they approached the Registrar, Balaji Registration Office, Chittoor District (4th respondent), who in turn, refused to receive the document on the ground that the registration was stopped in respect of the land in Survey No.74 of Akkarampalli Village.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land concerning the very same survey number is the subject matter of issue before this Court in several writ petitions. In W.P.No.14439 of 2011, plots purchased by the petitioner therein situated in Survey No.74/7 agitated before this Court against the action of the respondent authorities in not processing the document for registration. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by order, dated 19.01.2012, and observed that the respondent authorities have no right to prevent the petitioner therein from enjoying his absolute rights and consequently directed respondents 1 to 4 that they shall not have any right to prevent any transaction by the petitioner vis-à-vis the plot allotted to it by the APIIC.
3. Following the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of holding that respondents 1 to 4 shall not have any right to prevent any transaction by the petitioners vis-à-vis the plots allotted to the father of 1st petitioner and to the 2nd petitioner by the APIIC. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 12th June, 2014 Nvl HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16034 of 2014 Date: 12-06-2014 nvl HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16031 of 2014 Date: 12-06-2014 nvl THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16064 OF 2014 DATE: 12-06-2014 nvl HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.15737 of 2014 ORDER:
Date: 10th June, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.15737 of 2014 Date: 10th June, 2014 KL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23247 OF 2013 DATE: 12-06-2014 Between:-
Krishna Panduranga Joshi --PETITIONER AND The Inspector General of Stamps Registration And Marriage Assurance, MJ Market, Hyderabad and others.
--RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23247 OF 2013 ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that vendor of the petitioner earlier registered a plot in the name of the petitioner consisting of 200 square yards on 17-06-1987 vide document baring No.3374/1987, which disclosed that plot fell in lay out which was comprised of Survey No.206, 206,207 and 210. On subsequent enquiries, it was noticed that the plot which was sought to be allotted to the petitioner was actually falling in Survey NO.204 and the plot which was shown in the registered document was registered to some other person. Having realized the mistake, the vendor came forward to register the plot bearing No.41 to an extent of 200 square yards in survey NO.204 of Dommarapochampally Village, Quthubullapuram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner avers that when petitioner and 4th respondent appeared before 3rd respondent to present deed of conveyance, the 3rd respondent refused to entertain the deed without assigning any reasons. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent refused to receive and process the deed of conveyance, and the action of 3rd respondent is illegal.
The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit. He avers that the property on which deed of conveyance is proposed is not included in the prohibitory Watch Register. Therefore, there is no question of prohibition of registration of deed of conveyance. It is the contention of the petitioner that the document is presented. Whereas, it is the contention of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner has not presented any document before him for registration.
As seen from the record in the writ petition, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner presented the document and the 3r d respondent refused to receive. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent illegally refused to entertain the document is not valid. If there is any deed of conveyance between the petitioner and 4th respondent with reference to plot No.41 to an extent of 200 square yards in survey No.204 of Dommarapochampally Village, Quthubullapuram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, liberty is given to the petitioner to present deed of conveyance and as and when such deed of conveyance is presented before the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent shall receive and process the same in accordance with Indian Registration and Indian Stamp Act and shall release the document otherwise in order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Pending W.P.M.Ps in this writ petition shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
P.NAVEEN RAO,J Date: 12-06-2014 Note: Issue C.C. in one week.
nvl THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23247 OF 2013 DATE: 12-06-2014 nvl
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

B Narasimhulu vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others

Court

High Court Of Telangana

JudgmentDate
12 June, 2014
Judges
  • P Naveen Rao