Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt.G.Ayesha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 October, 2022
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO.34997 of 2022
Between:-
Smt.G.Ayesha .... Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
represented by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District
& 4 others. .... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh Kumar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents : Learned Government Pleader for
Revenue
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 5th respondent in refusing to receive the documents presented by petitioner for registration, in respect of the subject matter property, without assigning any valid reasons, as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to receive, register the documents and release the same.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner while reiterating the contentions raised in the Writ Petition, inter alia, submits that the action on the part of the 5th respondent/Sub-Registrar in refusing to receive the documents presented by the petitioner, without assigning any valid reasons, is not sustainable in Law. He submits that it is obligatory to the registration authority to receive the documents presented for the registration. If at all the registration authority refuses to register the same, he shall give the reasons, as required under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. The learned counsel also submits that in similar circumstances, the Writ Petitions were entertained and directions were issued to the registration authorities and places reliance on such order dated 13.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.20297 of 2022.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on the basis of written instructions dated 30.10.2022 received from the 4 th respondent, inter alia, submits that the land in question is purely DKT land and the same has been included in the Prohibited Properties List under Sections 22-A and 27-B of the Registration Act, 1908 to prevent the registrations and to safeguard the DKT lands.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made. As rightly agreed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the registration authorities are under obligation to receive the documents presented for registration and if at all there is any objection for registering the same, the reasons shall be assigned, so that the applicant would be in a position to work out his remedies, in accordance with Law.
6. In the present case, it would appear that the registration authorities have not adhered to the requirements of Law. Be that as it may. In the light of the decision, on which much reliance is placed, this Court deems it is appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the 5th respondent/Sub-Registrar to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioner, in respect of the subject matter property, if it is otherwise, in compliance of the provisions of the Registration Act. In the event, the 5th respondent/Sub-Registrar refuses to register the documents, he shall pass a reasoned order, as mandated under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 and intimate the same to the petitioner so as to enable him to prefer appeal under Section 72 of the Act or workout other remedies available in Law.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date: 31.10.2022 IS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO.34997 of 2022 Date: 31.10.2022 IS