Back
2021 Supreme(AP) 474
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Trinity Homes And Resorts Pvt Ltd - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 573 of 2021
Decided On : 05-07-2021
Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, for the Appellant
A Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a document must be accompanied by an appropriate order and recorded reasons under Section 71 of the Registration Act.
Headnote:
REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 71 - REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS - SUB-REGISTRAR'S DUTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AND RECORD REASONS FOR REFUSAL TO REGISTER - ISSUANCE OF NOTICE ADVISING PETITIONER TO UPDATE WEBLAND RECORDS WITHOUT PASSING APPROPRIATE ORDER UNDER SECTION 71 IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner purchased agricultural land and presented the sale deed for registration. The Sub-Registrar kept the document pending due to an issue with stamp duty payment. The District Registrar directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and registration fee, which the petitioner did. However, the Sub-Registrar issued a notice directing the petitioner to update the land details in the WebLand ROR 1B within 15 days, threatening action under Section 71 of the Registration Act if the document was not updated.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Sub-Registrar's notice was illegal and arbitrary as it was not an appropriate order under Section 71 of the Registration Act. The Sub-Registrar is required to pass an appropriate order and record reasons for refusing to register a document, and the notice issued in this case did not meet these requirements.
Issues: Whether the Sub-Registrar's notice directing the petitioner to update the WebLand records was a valid order under Section 71 of the Registration Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 71 of the Registration Act, which requires the Sub-Registrar to pass an appropriate order and record reasons for refusing to register a document. The court held that the Sub-Registrar's notice did not meet these requirements and was therefore illegal and arbitrary.
Final Decision: The court directed the Sub-Registrar to register the document if it was otherwise in order, or to pass an appropriate order under Section 71 of the Registration Act recording reasons for the refusal to register. The court also directed the Sub-Registrar to intimate the petitioner of the decision within four weeks.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent passing the impugned proceedings Notice No.P-16/2019 dated 04.12.2020 directing the petitioner to get the details of land updated in Web land as illegal arbitrary malafide intentional and contrary to the rules under Section 71 of the Registration Act and consequently set-aside the same as illegal and further direct the 3rd respondent to register the pending document”
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner - company purchased an extent of Ac.19-50 cents of agricultural land in Sy.No.321-1D of Thikkavanipalem hamlet of Chipurupalli Village, Parvada Mandal from their vendor G. Jagannadha Raju and others.
3. Initially, the third respondent/Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem kept the document pending, as there was an issue regarding payment of stamp duty. The third respondent referred the matter to the District Registrar for collection of stamp duty. The District Registrar passed an order on 19.03.2019 directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.10,35,950/- and deficit registration fee of Rs.1,56,000/-, totalling to Rs.11,65,950/-. The second respondent/ District Registrar and Inspector, directed the third respondent to collect the deficit amount and take necessary action, if the document is otherwise is order.
4. The petitioner further contended that, though the petitioner paid the entire deficit amount, as directed by the second respondent, the third respondent kept the document pending erroneously on a flimsy ground and it is observed by the third respondent that the schedule land details of the seller in ROR 1B web land are not appearing and it has to be treated as not accompanied with Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds of seller’s with documents; therefore, advised the petitioner to get the land in the WebLand ROR 1-B updated, within 15 days with threatened action under Section 71 of Registration Act, 1908, with respect to pending Document P.No.P16/2019. The petitioner contended that issue of Notice No.P16/2019 dated 04.12.2020, directing this petitioner to get the Webland adangals updated, is illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction as stated supra.
5. Third respondent/Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia contending that the vendors of the petitioners i.e., Ganapathiraju Jagannadha Raju and others executed a sale deed dated 03.01.2019 in favour of the petitioner conveying an extent of Ac.19-50 cents in Sy.No.321-1-D of Thikkavanipalem, Hamlet of Cheepurupalli East Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and presented the same before the then Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem for registration and the then Sub- Registrar, Lankelapalem having found that the document is undervalued, kept the document pending by assigning P.NO.16/2019 and referred the matter to the District Registrar, Anakapalli for determination of the market value. Accordingly, the District Registrar, Anakapalli decided the deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fee and this petitioner paid the deficit stamp duty and registration charges. Since, the Webland details are not updated, the document is not registered and advised the petitioner by issuing notice impugned in this writ petition to get the Webland details updated. Therefore, there are no grounds to set-aside the order, since it is only a notice intimating about the defect to be cured for registration of the document and the said advise cannot be declared as illegal or arbitrary and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
6. During hearing, Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the notice impugned in the writ petition is in the nature of advise at one stage and at the end, it is in the nature of order. Issue of advise or passing an order is illegal on the face of record, as the S
