M Satyanarayana
26 November 2016 at 12:03
Sir,
After preliminary decree, party to partition is supposed to file for final decree along with application for metes and bound and appointment of commissioner. If the application for metes and bound and application for final decree is dismissed for non appearance of counsel and to restore the dismissed petition what is limitation period for such application for restoration and whether it is treated equal to a dismissal of a suit or dismissal of application.
Please kindly enlighten me do I have a right to file for final decree.
Thanking you,
M.SATYANARAYANA
Bharati Agarwal
24 November 2016 at 13:42
My late Husband was a Director(without any share holding)in a company which has taken loan from SBI.My husband was a gurantor to this loan to the extent of our residential flat which was his self acquired property which now has is iinherited by me me, my daughters and mother-in-law.
SBI is issuing various letters, notices to us for the total loan amounts whihc is much much higher than value of our flat.We did not sign and execute any documents after death of my husband.We do not have a single related paper of this loan etc and is not provided by the borrower also.
We have submitted requests to SBI under RTI Act but they do not respond at all.We have approached in writing to the higher designated Appleate Authority,i.e. GM level, but no response at all.
We are helpless to defend us in absence of any documents, paper,etc.The Bank Official and borrower has found us soft target and exploiting us.
Please suggest remedy.
We can afford legal expenses at any forum.
N M Prasad
22 November 2016 at 14:27
Dear Sir,
I had been working in govt. of india for 1 year and i had been posted at Visakhapatnam.
My wife is suffering with cancer and she is undergoing treatment in Tata memorial centre, Mumbai.
So can i approach my department for my transfer to Mumbai, so that i can provide her better treatment.
*Is it possible to get transfer for medical need of family.
My department headquarters is at Mumbai only.
shrishriml
27 October 2016 at 20:04
I am working and earning sufficient to maintain myself. Separated from my husband 6 months back and since then he has not been paying anything for our 3 year old child who is with me.
My husband earns more than double of what i earn, will he have to pay monthly maintenance for our child? If yes, what is the percentage of his salary that he will have to pay for our child?
Under which section should i file for maintenance?
mahesh
27 October 2016 at 15:27
Wife filed false dvc in 2015 she submitted fabricated injuries photos and forged doctor's writting and signature. We filed a case on wife regarding this false evidence and perjury we filed this in court during lawyers skrite in our state. We havent got any date regarding this so far. When we asked about this our counsel has not given any clarification. How can we know the status of this case? If not admitted what should i do
Amit shrivastava
27 October 2016 at 14:33
Sir A case register against mr. X on 5.05.2012, department directed him to go to support the investigation on 18.05.2012. When he present before investigation agency on 24.05.2012, they arrested him and send to Judicial custody . Meanwhile investigation agency filed the charge sheet on 30.06.2012. after filing that charge sheet Court bailed out him on 23.08.2016 then he narrate the case before department and joined duties on 27.08.2012. On 31.08.2012 authorities suspended him w.e.f 24.05.2012 then issued charge sheet on 13.08.2013 which was stayed by court on 18.07.2014. Mr X revoked on nar 2015 on the pay sclae of 2012.
Qustion 1. whether retrospective suspension is admissible in law
Question 2. whether this case comes under contemplated suspension.
Question 3.whether holding increment by way of suspension is justified in the eyes of law after filing charge sheet without issueng order.
Question 4. is Aincrement is admissible to him.
please give guidance on this issue
HARENDRA S SINGH
19 October 2016 at 14:58
Dear Sir
5 yrs back I have purchase a room in chawl (Kalyan) which was in green zone but now when I check online 7/12 it is showing as "Anidhkrut Bandhkaam" that means it change from green zone to R Zone or else?
2)what is chances of demolition as people in our galli is saying as this will get demolished by nagarpallika? (I have reg. agreement where both party declarae as risk will be buyer & sellers & I have no developmennt agreent where developer & owners diff. we are paying taxes to nagarpalika & got nul connection too.)
Regards
shyam lal sharma
19 October 2016 at 13:28
Good Afternoon learned Adocates
Kindly solve my Query as soon as possible...
Property rights of a Hindu Child in Adoption
Mr. A is the adopted child of Mr. B, at the time of adoption Mr. B given some property through registered deed (Settlement deed) to adopted son i.e.,(in the year 1973) to Mr. A, and after Mr. A’s adopted father’s death Mr.A inherited his biological father property with his biological brothers (in the year 1999).
And now Mr. A is demanding the properties of his adopted father i.e., Mr. B and now Mr. B natural daughter and others are in enjoyment.
As per my opinion once Mr.A inherited his natural father’s property he lost his capacity to claim his adopted father’s property.
asif
18 October 2016 at 22:58
I had purchased land in TS, RR district Acre: 1, when i applied for mutation MRO office refused to issued patta and pass book by issuing memo. The reason showing is land belongs to Government. when I approach to RDO they issued certified copy of assign land saying this land is lavani patta.
This land is showing under prohibited property in TS website
prohibited under other, notification number G.O.MS.NO.786 REV, Reference 22A
My question is that if it is prohibited why sub registrar registered this land and took registration fees 230000
Please advise me is below case is same as my case. can I file writ ? will Court give decision in my side
case
unless a notification under Section 22-A(2) read with Section 22-A(1)(e) is published, the Government cannot claim that the land in question belongs to it and seek to stall registration of documents in respect thereof.
posted 8 Apr 2011, 05:48 by advocatemmmohan Mandagaddi murali mohan [ updated 8 Apr 2011, 05:52 ]
It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased an extent of Ac.5.00
cents in Survey No.956 of Jawahar Nagar Village in the year 2007. Being desirous
of selling the said land, the petitioner approached the registration authorities
but was informed that registration of documents in respect of the said land was
prohibited. It is his case that his land is neither Government land nor assigned
land and that prohibition in respect of registration could not be applied to it.
Hence, the present writ petition.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.27752 OF 2009
15-03-2011
T.Yedukondalu
The Principal Secretary to Government,Department of Revenue, Stamps &
Registration,Secretariat of A.P., Hyderabad and others
Counsel for petitioner : Sri Karri Suryanarayana
Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Revenue
:O R D E R:
The petitioner assails the action of the Sub-Registrar of Stamps and
Assurances, Shameerpet, Ranga Reddy District, the third respondent, in not
entertaining documents for registration in respect of his land in Survey No.956
of Jawahar Nagar Village and Gram Panchayat, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District.
It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased an extent of Ac.5.00
cents in Survey No.956 of Jawahar Nagar Village in the year 2007. Being desirous
of selling the said land, the petitioner approached the registration authorities
but was informed that registration of documents in respect of the said land was
prohibited. It is his case that his land is neither Government land nor assigned
land and that prohibition in respect of registration could not be applied to it.
Hence, the present writ petition.
The Sub-Registrar, Shameerpet, the third respondent, stated in her counter
that the petitioner had applied for information as to the market value of the
land in Survey No.956 of Jawahar Nagar Village and that her office had informed
him that the subject land was Government land and therefore no value exists in
respect thereof in the basic value register. She further stated that the
District Collector, Ranga Reddy, under letter dated 08.07.2008 furnished the
District Registrar, Ranga Reddy, the second respondent, with a list of
Government lands. As per this list, Survey No.956 was notified as Government
land. Reliance was placed upon G.O.Ms.No.786, Revenue (Registration-I)
Department, dated 09.11.1999, a notification issued under the old Section 22-A
of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1908'). According to the
Sub-Registrar, Shameerpet, notwithstanding the substitution of Section 22-A of
the Act of 1908 under Act No.19 of 2007, the notifications issued under the
erstwhile provision would still continue to operate. She concluded by stating
that the petitioner had not presented his document for registration and
therefore no cause arose for filing the present writ petition.
The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondent
authorities, while reiterating the above stand, contended that it was not
necessary for the Government to issue a notification under Section 22-A(2) of
the Act of 1908, as it presently stands. It is his case that once Government
land is involved, Section 22-A(1)(b) would apply and not Section 22-A(1)(e) of
the Act of 1908. He further argued that the notification issued under the
erstwhile Section 22-A of the Act of 1908 vide G.O.Ms.No.786 dated 09.11.1999
would continue to operate in view of the validating clause in Act No.19 of 2007
and therefore, the prohibition put in place thereunder in respect of Survey
No.956 of Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, would continue to be
operative notwithstanding the substitution of the provision. He further stated
that as the petitioner had not presented his document for registration, occasion
did not arise for him to file the present case and that, if the petitioner
presented his document it would be considered and necessary action would be
taken under Section 71 of the Act of 1908.
This Court, however, does not find merit in the contentions advanced by the
learned Government Pleader.
With regard to the objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition, the
counter filed by the Sub-Registrar, Shameerpet, makes it clear that the
petitioner's document, if presented for registration, is bound to be rejected.
That being so, this Court is not impressed with the submission that the
petitioner should be driven to suffer an order under Section 71 of the Act of
1908 and again made to approach this Court thereafter. Once the stand of the
respondents is apparent, this Court is not barred from considering the issue
notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner did not present his document for
registration as yet. In any event, the cause of action arose upon the refusal by
the registration authorities to furnish to the petitioner the market value of
the subject land, which would be necessary for him to present his document for
registration with the required stamp duty.
Section 22-A of the Act of 1908, as it presently stands, reads as under:
"22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain documents:-- (1) The following
classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namely:--
(a) documents relating to transfer of immovable property, the alienation or
transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the State or Central
Government;
(b) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of
sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of immovable property owned by the
State or Central Government, executed by persons other than those statutorily
empowered to do so;
(c) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of
sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten) 10 years in respect of immovable
property, owned by Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview
of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments
Act, 1987 or by Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995 executed by persons
other than those statutorily empowered to do so;
(d) Agricultural or urban lands declared as surplus under the Andhra Pradesh
Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 or the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976;
(e) Any documents or class of documents pertaining to the properties the State
Government may, by notification prohibit the registration in which avowed or
accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational,
Cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil,
Criminal, Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others which are
likely to adversely affect these interest.
(2) For the purpose of clause (e) of sub-section (1), the State Government shall
publish a notification after obtaining reasons for and full description of
properties furnished by the District Collectors concerned in the manner as may
be prescribed.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer
shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issued under
clause (e) of sub-section (1).
(4) The State Government either suo motu or on an application by any person or
for giving effect to the final orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh or
Supreme Court of India may proceed to denotify, either in full or in part, the
notification issued under sub-section (2)."
Prior to its substitution under Act No.19 of 2007, Section 22-A read as
under:
"22-A.(1) Documents registration of which is opposed to Public policy:-- The
State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the
registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to public policy.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer
shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issued under sub-
section (1) is applicable."
Pertinent to note, 'public policy' no longer finds mention in the
substituted Section 22-A of the Act of 1908.
The argument of the learned Government Pleader is that there is no
necessity to publish a notification in respect of the subject land under Section
22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 as Section 22-A(1)(b) would have
application and not Section 22-A(1)(e). However this contention, if accepted,
would mean that all lands claimed to be Government lands which are sold by any
private party can be brought within the ambit of Section 22-A(1)(b). Such a
construction would render superfluous Section 22-A(1)(e) to the extent it speaks
of prohibition of registration of documents pertaining to lands in which the
State Government may have avowed or accrued interests.
That, obviously, could not have been the intention of the legislature. Further,
clause (b) of Section 22-A(1), on a plain reading, indicates that it relates to
prohibition of registration of documents in the context of the executants
thereof not being statutorily empowered to execute them. Thus, the said clause
would not have application in a case where the Government claims a particular
land to be its own on the basis of revenue records or otherwise. Had that been
so, there would have been no necessity for clause (e) of Section 22-A(1) of the
Act of 1908, which states that there shall be a prohibition of registration in
respect of documents pertaining to properties in which the State Government has
avowed or accrued interests, which would be adversely affected by such
registration. Thus, where the State Government stakes a claim that a particular
land belongs to it and seeks to put in place a prohibition with regard to
registration of documents in respect thereof, the same would invariably fall
within Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Act of 1908 alone and the Government must
necessarily publish a notification under Section 22-A(2) of the Act of 1908
giving full description of the property concerned. The sanctity of such a
notification is spelt out by Section 22-A(3) of the Act of 1908 which places an
embargo upon the Registering Officers from registering any document falling
within the ambit of the notification. In the present case, there is no dispute
that no such notification has been published under Section 22-A(2) of the Act of
1908 in respect of the subject land.
The other submission of the learned Government Pleader that the earlier
notification issued vide G.O.Ms.No.786 dated 09.11.1999 under the erstwhile
Section 22-A of the Act of 1908 would continue to operate, must inevitably fail.
Section 22-A of the Act of 1908, as it stood prior to its amendment under Act
No.19 of 2007, was struck down by this Court. Further, as it presently stands,
Section 22-A of the Act of 1908 does not speak of 'public policy' as a ground
for prohibiting registration of documents. The validation clause in Act No.19 of
2007, upon which much reliance has been placed by the respondents, reads as
under:
"3. Validation:--
Notwithstanding anything in any judgment, decree or order of a Court, Tribunal
or any other authority to the contrary no notification declaring that the
registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to public policy
and the refusal of the same for registration under Section 22-A of the Principal
Act during the period with effect from 1st April, 1999 being the date of the
commencement of the Registration (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act 4 of
1999) upto the date of the commencement of the Registration (Andhra Pradesh
Amendment) Act, 2006 substituting new Section 22-A in the Principal Act, shall
be deemed to be invalid and the refusal for registration of the said document
deemed to have been validly refused for registration, and accordingly:--
(a) no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any Court
against the State Government or any person or authority whatsoever for the
purpose of registration; and
(b) no Court shall enforce any decree or order directing to register."
Without going into the validity of the above validation clause, which is
under challenge in separate proceedings pending before this Court, the scope and
import of the clause may be noted. The clause merely speaks of validating the
notifications issued under the old provision and the refusal to register
documents on the basis thereof, between the two stipulated dates 01.04.1999 and
the date of substitution of Section 22-A. The clause does not have the effect of
validating for all times to come notifications issued under the erstwhile
invalidated Section 22-A of the Act of 1908. Once the very foundation for the
notification, being the old provision, vanished it is ludicrous to contend that
the notification issued on the basis of such provision would continue to survive
independently. This aspect is further exemplified by the fact that the Annexure
to G.O.Ms.No.786 dated 09.11.1999, in which the subject land in Survey No.956 of
Shameerpet Mandal finds mention, speaks of registration of documents pertaining
to immovable properties being prohibited on the ground that they are opposed to
public policy. As mentioned supra, this ground is no longer available under the
substituted Section 22-A of the Act of 1908. It is therefore not open to the
respondents to contend that the notification in G.O.Ms.No.786 dated 09.11.1999
stipulating a prohibition as to registration of documents on the ground that
they are opposed to public policy continues to operate.
It may be noticed that the issues raised in this writ petition have been
tried and decided by this Court earlier. In P.SURESH V/s A.P.STATE1 and
K.M.KAMALLULA BASHA V/s DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOR2, this Court held that mere
entries in the revenue records would not constitute proof of the Government's
title. I had occasion to deal with the issue in D.BHARATHMMA V/s STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH3 and SHAIK DUDEKULA PYARI JAN @ LAL BI V/s THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, MADANAPALLI4, wherein I held that unless a notification under Section
22-A(2) read with Section 22-A(1)(e) is published, the Government cannot claim
that the land in question belongs to it and seek to stall registration of
documents in respect thereof. I also held that without putting in place a
prohibition sourced in law, it is not open to the authorities to stall the
registration of documents. Thereafter, in SHAIK ALI V/s. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CHITTOOR5, this Court again reiterated this position.
Viewed thus, the stand of the respondents that the subject land in Survey No.956
of Jawahar Nagar Village and Gram Panchayat, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, should be treated as land in respect of which documents cannot be
entertained for registration, notwithstanding the fact that no notification has
been issued under Section 22-A(2) of the Act of 1908 in respect thereof, cannot
be countenanced.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed directing the Sub-Registrar, Shameerpet
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the third respondent, to receive, register and
deliver in accordance with the due procedure the documents presented by the
petitioner in respect of the subject land. No order as to costs.
?1(2009) 3 ALD 802
2(2009) 3 ALD 385
3(2010) 5 ALD 444
4 Writ Petition No.6016 of 2010 dated 02.07.2010
5 2011 (2) ALD 48 .
Member Strength 9,50,430 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Employer sold his business and asking to search any where.
Dear Sir,
I am an employee of a Pvt. Ltd. company, company has got a stone mining on lease in haryana since Feb. 2016 the lease is for approx 11 year, i have appointed as a Dept. Manager Sales before 1.5 month, now in this demonetization scenario my director has sold this business to other investor, and gave us a 15 days notice up to 30th Nov. 2016, as in my offer letter notice period is 15 days company has given me verbal notice on 15th nov. 2016.
I found my self foolish as with in 15 days i am unable to find a new job.
And my Oct. 2016 salary is still not received, company is asking to take salary in old 500-1000 currency notes.
I request you to please suggest me what to do in this situation, can i sue on my employer and get compensation for my loss and for spoiling my carrier.....
Attached is my offer letter.