ORDER :-Respondent No.4, namely Megacity Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, purchased the land in an extent of Ac.3-16 guntas in Sy. No.l00B (Old 100) at Nizampet Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from its original owners and subsequent purchasers vide registered Document Nos.6115/01 and 6116/01, dated 17.8.200, 6202/01, dated 20.8.2001 and 13706/01, dated 10.10.2001, and since then it has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

2. While so, respondent No.4-Bank went into liquidation, and it was superseded by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies vide orders dated 2.3.2002. And from 9.9.2002, the Assistant Registrar (Cooperation), who was appointed as Official Liquidator, become the lawful authority to deal with the properties of respondent No.4-Bank. However, the Ex-Vice Chairman and ex-Managing Director of respondent No.4-Bank, had executed documents alienating the land in favour of third parties, who in turn alienated the same in favour of other parties by carving out plots. The said transactions resulted in the parties resorting to filing of civil cases against each other.

3. The Official Liquidator having become the lawful authority to deal with the property of respondent No.4-Bank, conducted auction of the property in question, in which one Mr. M Gopal gave his offer at Rs.l.15 crores on 22.5.2006 and paid an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs on 25.5.2006 and another Rs.l.00 lakh on 20.11.2006. Thereafter, the said Mr. M Gopal entered into a MOD with the petitioner, who paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.99.00 lakhs to respondent No.4-Bank on 23.5.2007.

4. Thereafter, respondent No.4-Bank represented by the Official Liquidator, executed document (sale deed) dated 27.9.2007 in favour of the petitioner, and when the Official Liquidator representing respondent No.4-Bank presented the document for registration by remitting Rs.46.00 lakhs towards stamp duty, respondent No.3, namely the Sub-Registrar, Medchal, having received the document, passed orders dated 17.10.2007, refusing to register the document, and accordingly informed the Official Liquidator representing respondent No.4-Bank. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the registering authority has no power to refuse to register a document, and as such, the impugned order dated 17.10.2007 passed by respondent No.3 refusing to register the document on the ground that there is status quo order dated 26.4.2005 granted by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in LA. No.1033 of 2005 in O.S. No.455 of2005, runs contrary to the provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Rules 57 and 58 of the rules framed thereunder, Standing Order No.219 and the instructions issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.620, dated 28.9.2002 and G.O. Ms. No.497, dated 7.4.2003. She submitted that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.4-Bank represented by the Official Liquidator are parties to the said suit, and as such, the orders passed by the Civil Court do not operate against them In support of her arguments, she placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in P. Narasimha Reddy v. Sub-Registrar, Shameerpet Mandai, 2005 (2) ALD 807 and K. Sulochana v. District Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, 2005 (4) ALD 539.

6. Respondent No.3 filed counter. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. l to 3 while reiterating the counter averments submitted that the petitioner had purchased the property in question from the company in liquidation, namely respondent No.4-Bank in public auction conducted by the Official Liquidator. He submitted that the document presented by the petitioner and respondent No.4-Bank represented by Official Liquidator on 27.9.2007 for registration was kept pending as P1274/2007 for scrutiny and for clarification from higher authorities. Since there was an order of interim inj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document