THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16031 OF 2014 DATE: 12-06-2014 Between:
M.S.Gopinath s/o.M.Subbrayalu, Aged about 40 years, Occ: cultivation, r/o.D.No.10-76, Dornala Chenganna Street, Old Pet, Palamaner, Chitoor District and others.
--PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
--RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16031 of 2014 O R D E R:
Both the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the 6th respondent - Wakf Board represented that the subject matter of this writ petition is covered by a decision rendered by this Court in W.P.Nos.12412 and 12875 of 2013.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that same proceedings which are assailed in this writ petition were challenged in the said writ petition and this Court held that all the proceedings are not valid in law.
3. For the reasons alike and recording the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Writ Petition is disposed of. The registration authorities are directed to entertain and process the documents presented by the petitioners vide Endorsement Nos.29 of 2014, dated 29.05.2014, 23 of 2014, dated 01.05.2014, 24 of 2014, dated 01.05.2014, and 25 of 2014 dated 05.05.2014 in respect of the property of the first petitioner bearing Plot Nos.63 in Survey No.963/2, second petitioner bearing Plot No.64 in Survey No.963/2, third petitioner bearing Plot No.47 in Survey No.963/1B, fourth petitioner bearing Plot No.19 in Survey No.963/5A, situated at Palamaner Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, without insisting for No Objection from the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board to the effect that the said land is Wakf property. In the event the documents are found to fulfill the requirements of Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the registration authorities shall complete the registration formalities and release the documents in accordance with the due procedure. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO 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