KASIREDDY ASHOK KUMAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Kasireddy Ashok Kumar Reddy
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. -
(1.)The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not registering the documents in respect of land admeasuring Acres 3.50 cents in Survey No. 230/1 of Ananthaiahgaripally Village, Pullampet Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to register the documents.
(2.)The petitioner's case is thus:
(a) Acres 3.50 cents of land in Survey No. 230/1 of Ananthaiahgaripally Village, Pullampet Mandal, Kadapa District, was assigned in favour of Smt. Mallela Saraswathamma and Sri Mallela Subbarayadu. The assignees obtained loan from Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Ananthaiahgaripally, Pullampet by mortgaging the assigned lands and when they failed to repay the loan, the Society initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and brought the mortgaged lands for sale in execution of Awards No. 49/201-0-11 and 50/2010-11, dated 01.12.2010 and in the public auction, one Padasala Ramaiah purchased the said land and obtained sale certificate dated 29.06.2012.
(b) When Padasala Ramaiah tried to alienate the aforesaid land, the 3rd respondent raised objection on the ground that the land was an assigned land, aggrieved, he filed W.P. No. 22463 of 2012 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and relying upon the judgment in the case of Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District and another v. K. Guravaiah and another 2009 (3) ALT 85 (D.B.) : 2009 (2) ALD 250 (DB), wherein the division bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that if assigned lands were purchased by the third party in execution of award by the Co-operative Central Bank, they lose the character of assigned land and the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register the documents, the said writ petition was allowed and 3rd respondent was directed to receive and process the documents. Accordingly, by virtue of the judgment in W.P. No. 22463 of 2012, Padasala Ramaiah gifted the aforesaid land in favour of his sister Mallela Aruna, who is the vendor of the present petitioner.
(c) The further case of the petitioner is that when Mallela Aruna for her personal needs proposed to alienate the said land to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent again refused to receive and register documents on the same old ground that those lands are assigned lands. Hence, the writ petition.
(3.)Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for the respondents.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.