THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18596 OF 2014 DATE: 15-07-2014 Between:-
M.Nirmala W/o.Damodar Rao, aged about 55 years R/o.Beerakuppam village, Nagulapuram mandal, Chittoor District and others.
--PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
--RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 18596 OF 2014 O R D E R :
In this writ petition, the only grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the insistence by the registering authorities on production of ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from the Revenue Authorities as a condition precedent for receiving and registering the document presented by them for registration in connection with immovable property.
2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue submit that the subject matter to the extent of No Objection Certificate is squarely covered by the decision of Division Bench in W.A.No.1653 of 2013. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. Learned counsel for petitioners also submits that the land in issue is not assigned to Ex-Servicemen.
3. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District ( respondent No.4) to receive and process the document presented by the petitioners without insisting upon such NOC and in the event the document presented fulfils the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908,and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, he shall register and release the document in accordance with the due procedure. However, if the respondent No.4 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. 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: 15-07-2014 nvl THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18596 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 3rd 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