Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T H Pabhakar Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 November, 2024
1
APHC010436242024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 22665 OF 2024
Between:
1. T H PABHAKAR RAO, S/O. LATE T.H. KRISHNA MURTHY AGED
ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. D.NO.4-36,
M.YARRAPALLI VILLAGE, H/O. THANGEDUKUNTA VILLAGE, OD
CHERUVU MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICTERSTWHILE
ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
2. T.H. ASWARTHA NARAYANA MURTHY,, S/O. LATE T.H. KRISHNA
MURTHY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.
D.NO.4-30, M.YARRAPALLI VILLAGE, H/O.THANGEDUKUNTA
VILLAGE, OD CHERUVU MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI
DISTRICTERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
3. T.H. HARISARVOTHAMA RAO,, S/O. LATE T.H. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.23-
114/1, MADHURA NAGAR, NEAR SANTHOSH MATA TEMPLE,
SHAMSHABAD, K.V.RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, TELANGANA
STATE.
4. T.H. SANATH KUMAR,, S/O. LATE T.H. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED
ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. M.YARRAPALLI
VILLAGE, H/O.THANGEDUKUNTA VILLAGE, OD CHERUVU
MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR
DISTRICT.
5. T.H. RAVI PRASAD,, S/O. LATE T.H. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED
ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. M.YARRAPALLI
VILLAGE, H/O.THANGEDUKUNTA VILLAGE, OD CHERUVU
2
MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT
ERSTWHILEANANTAPURDISTRICT.
6. T.H. CHAKRAPANI,, S/O. LATE T.H. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. D.NO.4-2-265, DB
COLONY, RTO OFFICE ROAD, HINDUPUR MANDAL, SRI SATYA
SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE (REGISTRATION AND STAMPS)
DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHI.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, OD CHERUVU MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI
DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, HINDUPUR, PRESENTLY AT
PUTTAPARTHI, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE
ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
5. THE SUBREGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, KADIRI,
SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. P NARAHARI BABU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners
and Sri Arjun Chowdary, learned Asst. Government Pleader for Revenue.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Writ
Petitioners have acquired the property from their ancestors and has submitted
the sale deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar (Respondent No.5). It
is the case of the Writ Petitioner that the Sub-Registrar has declined to accept
the said sale deed dated: 24.09.2024 and to process the same. He would
submit that no reason was assigned by the Respondent No.5 for declining to
receive the said documents and process the same.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Salimeni Ravindra Vs. The State of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors. (W.P.No.10392 of 2021 dated 15.06.2021). He would place
reliance on this judgment to submit that the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to
receive the document presented for registration. He would submit that as per
Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, there is an obligation on the
Registrar/Sub-Registrar to process the sale deed and either register the same
or record reasons for refusal to registrar a document which is presented for
registration and make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such
order in his Book No.2 with the endorsement of the phrase "registration
refused" on the presented document for registration. This procedure is
followed as per Rules 161 to 164 of the Rules framed under the Registration
Act, 1908.
4. This Court, having perused the judgment of this Court in Salimeni
Ravindra's case (W.P.No.10392 of 2021 dated 15.06.2021), is of the view that
the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment. Accordingly, this
Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Respondent No.5 to
receive the sale deed dated: 24.09.2024 (Ex.P1) and process the same in
accordance with the procedure as indicated and as dealt with in this judgment
dated 15.06.2021 in W.P.No.10392 of 2021.
5. The Petitioner is directed to submit a copy of this order along with
the photo copy of the judgment of this Court which is relied-on i.e., Salimeni
Ravindra's case (W.P.No.10392 of 2021 dated 15.06.2021) to the Registrar
for better appreciation and for following the procedure in accordance with law
in future cases as well.
6. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands
disposed of. Needless to state that on presentation of the sale deed, the Sub-
Registrar namely Respondent No.5 shall pass a Speaking Order as per law
within a period of four (04) weeks from today in the event he/she is not
inclined to register the document. No order as to costs.
7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this
order.
_________________________________
GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt: 07.11.2024
MNR
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.22665 OF 2024
Dt: 07.11.2024.
Mnr
