Back
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Naveen Rao, J.
D. Venkateswara Reddy – Petitioner
versus
State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.14806 of 2021
Decided on 2.7.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue
For the Respondent Nos.4 to 6: None
IMPORTANT POINT
Registering authority can be injuncted from entertaining a deed of conveyance or any other document affecting right/interest in a property only if an injunction order by a Civil Court or an order of High Court is in operation imposing restraint on alienation or creating third party interest on a property.
Headnote:
Injunction – Grant of – Registering authority can be injuncted from entertaining a deed of conveyance or any other document affecting right/interest in a property only if an injunction order by a Civil Court or an order of High Court is in operation imposing restraint on alienation or creating third party interest on a property – Mere pendency of an original suit/appellate suit or case before High Court is not a ground to injunct – Writ Petition dismissed leaving it open to petitioner to prosecute pending suit and interlocutory application stated to have been filed in that suit.
Held: Thus, the registering authority can be injuncted from entertaining a deed of conveyance or any other document affecting right/interest in a property only if an injunction order by a Civil Court or an order of this Court is in operation imposing restraint on alienation or creating third party interest on a property. As a corollary, mere pendency of an original suit/appellate suit or case before this Court is not a ground to injunct.
For the reasons stated above’ the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to prosecute the pending suit and the interlocutory application stated to have been filed in that suit. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. (Paras 12 and 13)
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Naveen Rao, J.—Prayer sought in the writ petition reads as under:
“... to issue an appropriate writ or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents No.2 and 3 in listing the schedule property i.e., entire land to an extent of Ac.15.18 gts. situated in Sy.No.150 of Narsingi Village, R.R. District in prohibitory list or as Court dispute in Dharani Portal pursuant to the representation dated 04.05.2021 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents No.2 and 3 forthwith list the property i.e., entire land to an extent of Ac.15.18 gts. situated in Sy.No.150 of Narsingi Village, R.R. District in prohibitory list and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
3. According to petitioner, Acs.15.18 guntas in Survey No.150 of Narsingi Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was jointly purchased by way of registered sale deeds dated 23.03.2013, 30.01.2013, 18.04.2013, 08.04.2013 and 08.05.2013. In terms of the joint purchase made, petitioner is entitled to share of Acs.3.34 guntas of land. Without dividing the individual shares and demarcating the individual extents of land, the other joint purchasers started alienating the land, creating third party interest and affecting the right of petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner points out that several sale deeds are executed without the consent of the petitioner and on a closer look at the schedule of each of the sale deeds placed on record, it shows that the boundaries described are same. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not possible to have same boundaries for different extents of land even if the survey number is same. By this manner, the other shareholders are creating further litigation and preventing the petitioner from enjoying the fruits of the purchase made by him in the year 2013.
5. Aggrieved by their illegal actions and undertaking sale of joint property without his consent, petitioner instituted O.S.No.1124 of 2018 along with another person in the Court of III Additional District Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiffs prayed to allot Acs.4.09 guntas out of Acs.15.18 guntas as their share and to allot remaining Acs.11.09 guntas as the share of defendant Nos. 1 to 49 and to allot the same to defendant Nos.89 to 92, 100, 102, 103, 104, 107 to 156, as the purchasers. Plaintiffs also prayed to appoint Advocate Commissioner to allot the respective shares. Plaintiffs also filed interlocutory application praying to grant an injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party interest. It appears, the application is pending at the stage of service of notice on all the defendants/ respondents.
6. While so, petitioner makes a representation on 04.05.2021 to the District Collector -2nd respondent, and the Sub Registrar - 3rd respondent, stating that as there is civil dispute pending on apportionment of respective shares of joint purchasers, the property should be kept in prohibited list of properties and should not entertain deeds of conveyance or creation of party interest in any other manner pending disposal of the suit. Alleging inaction, this writ petition is filled.
7. In other words, the claim of the petitioner is, until the suit is decided, the transactions should not be permitted in the subject land which is subject matter of pending suit even though no injunction is granted by the trial Court.
8. Ordinarily, whenever a document is presented for registration in compliance of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act, 1908’) and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the registering authority has to receive, process, register and release the document. He may refuse to receive/ register, if the property in iss
