M/S. Aditya Real Estates vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 2508 AP

                                1




     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
             WRIT PETITION No.1007 of 2022
ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the letter / order

dated 15.12.2021 issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar,

Bogapuram refusing to give a market value certificate on the

petitioner's application.

This Court has heard Sri N. Vijay, learned counsel for

the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Stamps

and Registration.

The petitioner before this Court is claiming ownership

of property in Sy.No.15-18 of Golagam Village, Denkada

Mandal of Vizianagaam District, executed in his favour by

four vendors. The total extent of the land is Ac.3-91 cents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

made an application before the 2nd respondent for issuance of

a Market Value Certificate for five items of land with distinct

boundaries in Sy.No.15-18 of Golagam village. This was

refused by the Sub-Registrar on the ground that an

injunction order was passed in I.A.No.318 of 2021 in

O.S.No.17 of 2021, dated 29.04.2021, by the Principal

District Judge, Vizianagaram. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that neither the petitioner nor his vendors

are parties to the said suit. He also points out that the suit

was filed for a specific performance of agreement of sale said

to have been executed by the four defendants therein.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the

plaintiffs nor the defendants sold the property to the

petitioner. He draws the attention of the Court to a copy of

the plaint, which is annexed to the writ affidavit. He also

draws the attention of the Court to the docket order passed in

I.A.No.318 of 2021, in which learned Judge of the trial Court

directed the "respondents" not to alienate the suit schedule

property. The property involved in the said suit for specific

performance is the land measuring Ac.22.47 cents out of

Ac.25.00 cents in Sy.Nos.117, 118 and 120 of Gantlam village

and Sy.Nos.15 and 16 of Golagam village. Learned counsel,

therefore, argues that the said suit has nothing to do with the

petitioner's property and in any view of the matter it is not an

order binding on the petitioner. He argues that what is

sought was mere market value details. He relies upon the

judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court

pronounced in Thummalachetty Builders and Developers

(Pvt) Limited v Commissioner and Inspector General of

Stamps and Registration and others1 wherein a learned

single Judge held that the registration of a document will not

create any new title. Relying on para 17 of the judgment

learned counsel argues that the Standing Order No.219 can

only be pressed into service when the Registrar or the

petitioner are party to the suit or proceedings and an order is

passed therein. Therefore, he prays for an order.

2008 (6) ALT 227 (SB)

In reply to this, learned Government Pleader for

Stamps and Registration argues that there is nothing wrong

in the order passed by the Sub-Registrar. He points out that

since there is an interim injunction and a litigation is

pending, which is brought to the notice of the Sub-Registrar,

he acted in line with the standing orders and out of respect

for the Court he did not permit any further action like

issuance of Market Value Certificate etc.

After considering the submissions made, this Court is

of the opinion that it has to agree with what is stated by the

learned counsel for the petitioner. The injunction order is in

a suit for specific performance filed against the defendants

pertaining to a certain property. The defendants were

directed not to alienate the property. The order or direction

was not given to the Sub-Registrar. Apart from that what is

requested is the mere Market Value Certificate. The Survey

numbers for which the Market Value Certificate is sought do

not tally with the survey numbers in the plaint. The vendors

of the petitioner are described in para 4 of the affidavit. They

are not parties to the said suit viz., O.S.No.17 of 2021. The

case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner

also applies correctly to the facts of this case. The learned

single Judge was considering a case of registration of a

document yet he clearly held that it is no part of the duty of

the Registrar to enter into the questions of title. Later in para

17 learned single Judge also held that as the Registrar was

not a party to the suit in that case he could not refuse the

registration. In the case on hand what the petitioner sought

is a mere Market Value Certificate.

This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that in the light

of the law cited above and the facts of the present case, the

action of the Sub-Registrar in refusing to furnish the Market

Value Certificate as claimed by the petitioner is totally

incorrect. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the Sub-

Registrar-2nd respondent to act upon the petitioner's

application dated 13.12.2021 and issue a Market Value

Certificate to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is

allowed. No order as to costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending,

if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J Date:13.06.2022 Ssv