Back
2021 Supreme(AP) 537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Bandi Kanthamma W/o Late B Somi Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary Registration and Stamps Department and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.10660 of 2021
Decided On : 28-10-2021
For the Petitioner: A V Sivaiah
Point of law: In case, the appeal is duly preferred in compliance of the Rules, the dismissal solely on the ground of technicality i.e. limitation may be impermissible.
Headnote:
Registration Act, 1908 - Section 71(1) - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Issuing a specific direction - Receive and register Document - Petitioner purchased undivided share of property from her vendor one in Court auction vide E.P. in O.S. on the file of Additional District Judge - Sale deed was executed in favor of this petitioner and petitioner presented same for registration before third respondent as per Anywhere Registration - Respondent processed same vide C.S but did not release document after registration - As document was not registered released when presented for registration by third respondent petitioner files for a specific direction before High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad - High Court vide order issued a direction to third respondent to register and released document within a period of four weeks while observing that if third respondents wants to refuse registration he has to record reasons as envisaged.
Finding of the court :
On overall consideration of entire material on record it is evident that appeal was not properly filed in compliance of Rule 165(i) & (ii), Rule 166(iii) and non-payment of fee payable on appeal under Section 72 of Registration Act so also on limitation - Hence impugned proceedings - Proceedings cannot be said to be illegal on ground that this order was against purport of order in W.P - Though it is contended that proceedings impugned in writ petition Proceedings are in violative of directions as appeal was not considered on merits in fact it was not direction issued by this Court except to dispose of appeal filed by this petitioner in accordance with law after considering grounds raised by petitioner - That does not mean that appeal cannot be decided on ground of limitation and noncompliance of various provisions.
Result : Petition Dismissed
ORDER :
1. This Writ Petition is filed by one Bandi Kanthamma, w/o late B. Somi Reddy, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the action of the second respondent in disposing of the appeal on technical plea of delay without following the directions specified in W.P.No.39047 of 2018 dated 31.10.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set-aside the same by issuing a specific direction to the respondents to receive and register the Document P.No.77/2016 dated 31.12.2015 and release the same to the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that, the petitioner purchased 1/3rd undivided share of property from her vendor one M. Kumara Swamy in Court auction vide E.P.No.6 of 2010 in O.S.No.45 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Judge, Anantapur. The sale deed was executed in favour of this petitioner and the petitioner presented the same for registration before the third respondent as per ‘Anywhere Registration’. The third respondent processed the same vide C.S.No.12035/2015, but did not release the document after registration.
3. As the document was not registered, released when presented for registration by the third respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8438 of 2016 for a specific direction before High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The High Court vide order dated 01.09.2016 issued a direction to the third respondent to register and release the document within a period of four weeks, while observing that, if the third respondents wants to refuse the registration, he has to record reasons as envisaged under Section 71(1) of the Registration Act, 1908.
4. Since the third respondent did not comply with the order in W.P.No.8438 of 2016 dated 01.09.2016, the petitioner was compelled to file C.C.No.2119 of 2016 and it was contested by the third respondent, specifically contending that he has already passed an order on 21.09.2016 vide P.No.77/2015. In the said endorsement, the third respondent mentioned that there was an order of attachment by the Court in O.S.No.4 of 2001, but the third respondent did not serve copy of the order of refusal of registration, as required under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the third respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act before the second respondent/District Registrar on 23.07.2017 raising several questions, and the same was pending. Thereupon, the petitioner filed W.P.No.39047 of 201 and the High Court vide order dated 31.10.2018 directed the second respondent to consider the appeal within four weeks. Since the second respondent did not comply with the direction in W.P.No.39047 of 2017 dated 31.10.2018, C.C.No.1140 of 2019 was filed. Despite it, the third respondent did not register the document on the ground of attachment. However, the order of the second respondent in deciding appeal on technical ground of limitation is under challenge in this present writ petition, as the question of limitation was not raised at the initial stage when the appeal is entertained and registered, and contended that dismissal of appeal on the ground of limitation is illegal, thereby, the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be declared as illegal and arbitrary; consequently set-aside the same while issuing direction to the third respondent to register the document on representation by this petitioner.
6. The petitioner raised the following specific grounds in the writ petition:
(a) Proceedings No.A/798/2018 dated 18.06.2020 is contrary to the directions issued in W.P.No.39047 of 2018.
(b) When a direction was issued by this Court in W.P.No.39047 of 2018 on merits, dismissal of the appeal on technical plea of limitation is illegal and in violation of the order in W.P.No.39047 of 2018.
(c) The second respondent did not consider dismissal of O.S.No.4 of 2001 where an interim order of attachment was ordered. But, either Respondent Nos. 2 or 3 did not consider t
