Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Goda Velugonda Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 September, 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITON NO.20835 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 declare the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Draft
Memo No. G2/19134/2011, dt 01.12.2011 as illegal, without jurisdiction
and Unconstitutional and to issued consequential direction to the 4th
respondent to receive and register the document that may be presented by
the petitioner for registration in respect of the House site for an
admeasuring 100-00 Sq Yards (East-West 60 feets and North-South 15
feets of nearest Door No 11-465/1A in Sy.No.190/2 situated in Podili
Village and Mandal, Markapuram Revenue Division, Prakasam District
without reference to the memo of the 2nd respondent bearing No
G2/19134/2011 dt 01.12.2011 and pass such other orders.."
The main ground urged by this petitioner is that when the
document is presented for registration, rejection of the same based
on the Draft Memo No.G2/19134/2011, dt.01-12-2011 with
District Registrar, Ongole vide Endorsement No.G1/1382/2011,
dated 09-12-2011. The memo was issued in view of the injunction
orders passed by the High Court of Madras. The Madras High
Court directed based on a letter from Rev.B.M.Sudheer to The
Inspector General of Stamps and Registration, State of Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad not to register any deeds of conveyance by any
of the parties to any of the parties in respect of the properties
covered under the Scheme. But, the order was not communicated
to Registrar except the letter of Rev.B.M.Sudheer to the District
Registrar, who in turn issued such direction.
According to the order under challenge under Section 71 of
the Registration Act, refusal to register a document on the memo
issued by Tahsildar or any other officer is illegal in view of the
Division Bench two Division Bench judgments in P.Narasimha
Reddy v. Sub-Registrar, Shameerpeta Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District1 and S.Nagi Reddy v. Joint Sub-Registrar, Tirupati2.
Therefore, the order impugned in this Writ Petition is contrary to
the law declared by the Division Bench and also another judgment
of Single Judge in W.P.No.10721 of 2016, dt.01-04-2016,
W.P.No.34689 of 2012, dt.12-12-2012. Hence, the impugned
proceedings are hereby set aside while directing the 4th respondent
to receive and register, if it is not prohibited by any order or law,
the document by following the principles laid down in the
judgments referred supra.
With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of,
without touching the merits in the title of the petitioner. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in
this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 21-09-2021
KK
2005 (2) ALT 807
1999 (4) ALT 556
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITON NO.20835 of 2021
Date: 21.09.2021
KK
