IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THRUSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25620 of 2010 Between: K.S. Parvathamma ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Srinivas Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25620 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in insisting on production of “No Objection Certificate” (for short, ‘NOC’) for the purpose of registration of the land admeasuring Ac.2.19 cents in Sy.No.199/2 of Kakkalapally Village, Anantapur Rural Mandal and District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.4 to receive and register the document presented by him without insisting on NOC. I have heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents despite adjourning the case on two occasions at the request made on their behalf. The petitioner pleaded that her father-in-law was granted assignment over the land (admeasuring Ac.8.73 cents) in Sy.No.199/2 on 15.01.1951 by the then Tahsildar, Anantapur. Following the said assignment, a patta was stated to have been granted. After the demise of her father-in-law, the property was stated to have been partitioned among the petitioner’s husband and his brothers. The property in question is stated to have fallen to the share of the petitioner’s husband. After the death of her husband, the petitioner succeeded to the said property. When she approached respondent No.4 with an intention to present a sale deed, he declined to receive the same by insisting on NOC from respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner pleaded that while no such NOC is required, there is no absolute prohibition on alienation except to the limited extent of the condition of non-alienation for a period of ten years. She has further pleaded that as the period of ten years has expired long time back, there is no embargo on the transfer of land. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above pleas. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has opposed the above contentions. I have perused a copy of the ‘D’ Form patta issued in the name of K. Kannaiah, who is stated to be the father-in-law of the petitioner. Though there is a contradiction between condition No.3 and another condition, which is written in manuscript regarding prohibition on the transfer of land, the manuscript portion reads that there is a prohibition on alienation for initial ten years. Inasmuch as a specific condition has been added with manuscript, as an additional condition, it can be reasonably presumed that the same is incorporated as a special condition, which will override the printed proforma condition contained in clause (3) of the patta. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any justification for respondent No.4 for not receiving the document and registering the same. A Mandamus therefore shall be issued to respondent No.4 to receive the document presented by the petitioner and register the same, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.32722 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 09.12.2010 ES