R.SOMASHEKARAGOUDA
19 October 2016 at 15:01
can a dispute involving cancellation of sale deed and declaration of ownership be refered to lok adalat
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.
ashok
19 October 2016 at 12:10
Sir, please guide me how to prove in court that specific school is day school or Boarding school since the state/central Boards of school Education (cbse) has no set of rules governing /affiliation of boarding schools..
Sachin Singh
19 October 2016 at 11:10
Hello,
I bought a brand new car on 4th Sep 2016.
Since then I have been facing issues with my car as someone is trying to foul play with the same.
I have had people parking their bikes at an inch distance from my car rear bumper & even right in front of my car front end (which I had shown to the society watchman) and verbally discussed it with some managing committee members but to no avail.
Once I noticed my car bonnet was full of scratches so instead of reporting it to the managing committee I fixed it by myself and had to pay INR 2000/-.
Recently on 11th Oct 2016 Dusshera I wiped my car & thereafter visited a temple with my family by local train leaving my car in the society's covered park (where I park regularly) and after couple of hours when I cam back to witness the car was scratched again & also an alphabet "S" was written on the bonnet. I called up the secretary immediately and expressed my concern and have him also take a look at it.
I wrote a letter to the managing committee explaining the scenario and ask them to reimburse and assure such an instance is not repeated in future not only for my car but for any member in the society.
I also gave them 2 other options
1) I should be allowed to install CCTV camera in the car park and electricity supply would be taken from my home and I shall start/stop recording when my car is parked in the society
2) Or else I file a police complaint (NC) to safeguard my property
I received a written response from the managing committee stating.
1) Personal enmity if any is my personal lookout & society will not interfere (although I do not recollect me having any enemies)
2) Society does not permit me to install CCTV as I do not own the parking
3) I am free to take legal steps
Request here is to kindly guide what should I take as next steps to safeguard my property (car) from foul play.
Also request is to provide citation /judgement on the above matter which is in favour of the member So citation could help me to solve this problem.
It would be highly appreciate if I can get proper guidance at the earliest.
Best Regards,
Sachin
Sushil kumar
19 October 2016 at 00:29
Dear Experts
plaintiff filed a false declaration suit, HE was evicted from house, ownership decided up to Hon'ble High Court.Chandigarh.RSA 4362 / 2014
AS per rule application submitted to reply mandatory compliance with rule order 6 rule 15(4), and order 7 rule 1(j), now two year reply not submitted by the plaintiff. court last order last order closed, see attachment
please advise, case needs to be rejected / dismissed or not, what next plaintiff also not fixed required court fees also, res- judicata also applicable. mandatory law need not fulfilled.
What next Please advise
file not attaching please click link and download approx 800kb application and order joint .
https://www.mediafire.com/?s736rxe3u59ytgd
for to see full case file please click below link
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/b7xiouto129bw/2nd_false_suit_name_declaration
please free to visit www.mediafire.com/nrihrypklpolicekill
all folder names self explanatory, open folder all case files scan certified
thanks and regards sushil mehta +919418621618
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 .
pawan ahuja
18 October 2016 at 22:15
Respected sir, my wife has filed false 498a few months ago & they were ready for mutual consent divorce. I have also the recording of the wife where she accept & says that filing 498a is just to create the ground of divorce so my question to you is whether I should play this in court or in police station.
M. H. KUMAR
18 October 2016 at 21:45
me and my parents and brother are facing false 498a case from past 2 years. My wife claimed to pay 15 lacs (in three parts) of cash dowry without any basis of transaction or her father's ITRs (which does not support this claim). She rejected in court to have any medical examination against alleged violence (hot oil poured at her in kitchen) and also said we used to beat her with hands and wooden rod. she does not have any dowry evidence except two of her close relative produced for fake statements and the fake bills (without CIN/TIN no.). kindly suggest in the matter that how far her claims will stand in the court. also suggest for any precaution / and things to be taken care at my end.
Further to it, She already lost the Domestic violence case (was running for almost one year - almost 24 hearings) against us seven months back in diff court saying "Court waited but she did not attended the court till the evening. Case is closed because of default at her end"
I will be grateful for your help !!
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Bonus entitlement
Dear Learned Experts
I have a doubt on Payment of Bonus Act 1965/2015
Giving below my monthly salary slip details for the FY 2015-16
BASIC RS. 8925
HRA RS. 3570
CONVEYANCE RS. 1600
SPECIAL ALLOWANCES RS. 10155
MEDICAL ALLOWANCE RS. 1250
GROSS SALARY RS. 25500
Can you please guide me whether I am eligible for bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act 1965/201 or not.
If eligible, what is the amount of entitlement.
Our HR Head saying those whose gross salary crosses Rs. 21000, not eligible for bonus.
Few saying salary mean Basic + DA which few others saying all amounts to be clubbed.
I am unable to understand government department english definitions.
Hence, could you please guide
Thank you all
P V Gopal