AP High Court: If an Auction Is Conducted by a Cooperative Bank, the Property Ceases to be Property of the State

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

A single-judge bench consisting of honourable justice Ninala Jayasurya gave orders on the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petition challenges the action of respondents in including the land owned by the petitioner in the prohibited property list under section 22-A of the registration act as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the established legal principles. The petition included that the action of the respondent is violative of the constitutional rights under Article 14, 19, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

FACTS 

The petitioner had purchased the said property in the auction held by the district cooperative central bank. A sale certificate and a Pattadar passbook were issued to him, post which he continued paying the land cost regularly. The petitioner wanted to give the land to his daughter and requested respondent no. 4 to furnish the stamp duty and registration charges. He was informed that his land is included in the prohibited land list under section 22-A of the registration act and thus, registration couldn’t happen. The petitioner filed the writ petition to remove his land from the list of prohibited land list as he was the absolute owner of the land and had all the relevant evidence for the same. 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

The learned counsel of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased the said land in the auction held by the bank and the bank had also issued the sale certificate to the petitioner. Therefore, respondent no. 4 cannot refuse to register the land on grounds of it being on the prohibited land list. The petitioner counsel also contended that once the land was auctioned it was no more banks property. The petitioner was the valid owner of the land and the action of the respondent is contrary to law, unjust and the petitioner must be granted relief. The counsel of the petitioner relied on the following two judgments – Sub-registrar, Chittoor district v. K. Guruvaiah, and The Government of A.P. v. T. Krishna Murthy.

COURT’S ANALYSIS 

The court opined that the judgments quoted above are applicable to the present case. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner counsel are upheld. The refusal by respondent no. 4 for registering the land owned by the petitioner is unlawful. The rejection on the grounds that the land is under the prohibited land list is unsustainable and so the writ of mandamus is allowed. 

COURT’S DECISION

The court allowed the writ petition. Respondent no. 4 is directed to delete the land of the petitioner from the list of the prohibited land list issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The respondent shall receive the documents presented by the petitioner for the purpose of registration. The said exercise shall be completed within three weeks from the date of submission of the documents by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Any miscellaneous application shall also stand closed. 

Click here to view the Order 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -