High Court for State of TelanganaWP/30668/2015disposed of no costs

Y.Maheswar Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

2015-09-21Vilas V.Afzulpurkar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * WRIT PETITION No. 30668 of 2015 BETWEEN Y.Maheshwar Reddy ... PETITIONER AND The Union of India, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others ...RESPONDENTS Date of Order pronounced: 21.09.2015 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether his Lordship wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

ORDER: - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned government pleader for Revenue.

2. Petitioner seeks to register two documents with respect to the sites to an extent of 266.66 square yards in R.S.No.66/1, 66 and 66/2 and an extent

of 266.6 sq.yards in survey No.66/2 of Mamidalapadu, Kurnool, Kurnool District. Petitioner alleges that the fifth respondent is stated to be claiming that the land is a disputed land.

3. This Court in W.P.No.19684 of 2015 dated 01.07.2015 has held that even before presentation of the document, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to receive and process the same.

4. Writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the fourth respondent to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner, as aforesaid. The fourth respondent is further directed to receive and process the document in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and if the document is in conformity with the provisions of the aforesaid enactments, thereafter, register and release the document in accordance with the due procedure. It is also made clear that in the event of the fourth respondent not being satisfied with the compliance under the Registration Act or the Stamp Act, appropriate refusal endorsement together with reasons shall be recorded and communicated to the petitioner in terms of Section 71 of the Registration Act.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 21, 2015 LMV