Kandepu Aruna Kumari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1985 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

               WRIT PETITION NO.10324 OF 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

"....to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in refusing to receive, register and release document presented by the petitioner herein over the land in Sy.No.502/1E2, admeasuring Ac.1.37 cents situated in Karlapalem Village & Panchayat, Bapatla Sub-Division, Narasaraopet Revenue Division, Guntur District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to receive, register and release document presented by the petitioner and pass such other order."

2. The case of petitioner in nutshell is that the petitioner is

absolute owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.1.37

cents in Sy.No.502/1E2, situated in Karlapalem Village and

Panchayat, Bapatla Sub-Division, Narasaraopet Revenue Division,

Guntur District having acquired the same through registered sale

deed vide document bearing No.3711/2018, executed by the

Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur.

The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with one Nunna

Rambabu. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance in

O.S.No.263/2017 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-XII

Additional District Judge, Guntur. The Court decreed the suit in

favour of the petitioner on 09.10.2017. Since the judgment debtor

did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed in favour

of the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application before the

Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur to

execute the sale deed. Then, the Judge, Family Court-cum-XII

Additional Judge, Guntur executed sale deed in favour of the

petitioner on behalf of the judgment debtor vide document bearing

No.3711/2018, dated 26.07.2018 and accordingly the petitioner

has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land

without any interruption from anybody. The revenue officials after

conducting detailed enquiry with regard to his possession and title

over the said property mutated the name of petitioner in revenue

records. Now, the petitioner intends to gift the aforesaid land to

his son and accordingly executed a gift deed, dated 27.04.2021 by

paying necessary fees presented the gift deed before the

2nd respondent for registration. But, the 2nd respondent is not

receiving and processing the document presented by the

petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary.

3. During hearing, Sri G.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that the petitioner obtained registered sale

deed through process of the Court. Later, he executed a gift deed

in favour of his son and presented the same for registration. But,

the 2nd respondent had neither received nor registered the said

document in accordance with law. When a document is presented

for registration, it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar to receive the

same and if it is not in compliance of the provisions of law, the

Sub-Registrar may refuse to register the document recording the

reasons thereof.

4. Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 obligates the

Registrar or Sub-Registrar to record reasons for refusal to register

a document presented for registration and make an order of

refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No.2

and endorse the words "registration refused" on the presented

document for registration in accordance with Sections 161 to 164

and the rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908. A copy of

the reasons shall be furnished to the person, who presented the

document. But, in the present facts of the case, the Sub-Registrar

did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 71 of the

Registration Act, 1908, he refused to receive the document

presented for registration. Hence, the action of the

2nd respondent is illegal in refusing to receive the document.

Therefore, the inaction of the 2nd respondent is declared as illegal

and arbitrary, the Sub-Registrar/2nd respondent is directed to

receive the document presented for registration, if it is in

compliance with the provisions of the Act and in case the

Sub-Registrar intends to refuse registration of the document, he

shall pass appropriate orders strictly in terms of Section 71 of the

Registration Act, 1908 and Rules 161 to 164 and rules framed

there under, within a week from the date of receipt of this Order,

on representation of document by petitioner for registration.

5. With the above direction, Writ Petition is disposed of, at the

stage of admission, with the consent of both the counsel. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 15.06.2021

IS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION NO.10324 OF 2021

Date: 15.06.2021

IS