THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.37940 of 2014 Dated : 09.12.2014 Between:
K.Venkateshappa, S/o.K.Adeppa, Aged about 40 yrs, Occu : Cultivation, R/o.Chalakuru Village, Somandepalli Mandal, Anantapur District.
.. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration & Stamps) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, & 3 others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.37940 of 2014 ORDER :
The petitioner claims that his vendor E.Venkataramudu is the absolute owner of the land to an extent of Ac.1.78 cents in Survey No.416/3 of Chalakuru Village Polam, Somandepalli Mandal, Anantapur District. The petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the said property for valid consideration and when approached the Sub-Registrar, Penukonda, Anantapur District (4th respondent), the Sub-Registrar insisted to obtain No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Revenue authorities as a condition precedent to receive and process the deed of conveyance or to furnish any information.
2. With reference to the insistence of NOC from the Revenue authorities, as a condition precedent to receive the deed of conveyance, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1653 of 2013, passed a detailed order. Inspite of the detailed orders issued in the said Judgment, complaining that the registering authorities are insisting for obtaining NOC, writ petitions are filed. Having regard to the flow of litigation on this issue, even though the issue is settled vide Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to state before this Court the reasons for such insistence.
3. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps issued orders in memo No.G1/19131/2005 dated 30.10.2014, directing all the registering authorities not to insist for NOC from the revenue authorities as a condition precedent for receiving and processing the deeds of conveyance and reiterating the earlier orders issued in the year 2012.
4. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps also informed the registering authorities that if any such insistence is made, the same would be viewed seriously and appropriate disciplinary action would be taken.
5. Having regard to the orders issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in Memo No.G1/19131/2005 dated 30.10.2014, there is no need for any directions to be issued. If the petitioner has grievance with reference to such refusal, the petitioner has to specifically assert the person who is refusing, supported by material disclosing that the registering authority is insisting NOC. It is made clear that if any such insistence is made, inspite of the orders of the Division Bench of this Court and the orders of the Department, such action of the registering authorities would be viewed seriously.
6. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.
P.NAVEEN RAO,J 9th December, 2014
Rds