TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. and
A. Rajasheker Reddy, J
Bommareddy Gautham Reddy – Appellate
versus
State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondent
W.P. Nos.28643, 28776 and 28799 of 2021
Decided on 13.12.2021
(A) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 22-A – Non-registration of prohibited property – Authorities under Act of 1908 have to invariably follow procedure laid down under Section 22-A of Act of 1908 – Anything contrary to rules made thereunder, is null and void and authorities under the Act cannot place any such properties under list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of Act, which is not in accordance with procedure envisaged under said Section – Letters addressed by Inspector of Police are not falling under any of clauses mentioned under Section 22-A of Act of 1908, nor procedure envisaged there under is followed before issuance of impugned letters, as such, Sub-Registrars are under no obligation to act upon such letter and deny transactions in respect of properties of petitioners – Inspector of Police is not an ‘authority’ prescribed in Section 22-A of Act of 1908 for preparation of list of properties to be communicated to registering authorities for incorporating the same in list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of Act – Impugned letters addressed by Inspector of Police to Sub-Registrars of different areas of State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, set aside – However, this Order will not preclude Inspector of Police from taking action against petitioners/ properties belonging to petitioners, in accordance with law. (Paras 13 and 14)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 102 – Power of police officer to seize certain property – Language used in Section 102 of Code does not support interpretation that police officer has power to dispossess a person in occupation and take possession of immovable property in order to seize it – Section 102 of Code is not a general provision, which enables and authorizes police officer to seize immovable property for being able to be produced in Criminal Court during trial – This, however, would not bar or prohibit police officer from seizing documents/papers of title relating to immovable property, as it is distinct and different from seizure of immovable property – Disputes and matters relating to physical and legal possession and title of property must be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court. (Paras 11 and 12)
Result - Writ Petitions allowed.
ORDER (COMMON)
A. Rajasheker Reddy, J.—Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Order.
2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are one family members i.e., husband, wife and son, as such, related to each other. Assailing the action of the 4th respondent-Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Crime Investigation Department, Hyderabad in issuing letter dated 18.01.2021 to the Subregistrars of different areas in both the States i.e., State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, directing them not to register the properties belonging to the petitioners, these writ petitions have been filed.
3. Since all these writ petitions are challenging the action of the 4th respondent-Inspector of Police, for the sake of convenience, the facts, in brief, in W.P.No.28643 of 2021 are taken into consideration, which are as follows:
The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the properties mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, having purchased the same out of own funds and also out of loans obtained from financial institutions. The petitioner and one Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy, have incorporated a company in the name and style of RMS Research Labs Private Limited in the year 2002. However, due to differences, said G.Madhusudhan Reddy lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Jinnaram Police Station, Medak District, alleging fraud against the petitioner. As a result of which, the Station House Officer, Jinnaram registered FIR No.115/2015 on 25.06.2015 under Sections 420, 468 IPC. After filing of the charge sheet, the same is pending as Calender Case No.533 of 2021 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy. Challenging the said FIR and charge sheet, the petitioner along with wife and son, who are petitioners in W.P.Nos.28776 and 28799 of 2021, filed W.P.No.25890 of 2021 on the file of this Court, which is pending adjudication.
4. Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy also filed a Company Petition No.1/59/213/241/HBD/2017 complaining Oppression and Mismanagement on the part of the petitioner claiming various reliefs on the file of National Company Law Tribunal, which is pending adjudication.
5. While things stood thus, when the petitioner was in need of funds for meeting his litigation expenses, he tried to raise funds by mortgaging his properties, the sub-registrars-respondents 5-9 refused to entertain any document stating that there was a direction from the 4th respondent by way of letters dated 18.01.2021, not to accept any document for registration. The petitioner obtained said letters dated 18.01.2021 addressed to the respondents 5-9 separately, under Right to Information Act. The 4th respondent-Inspector of Police, being investigating officer has no power or authority to effect attachment of immovable property of an accused person but he can only seize the property under Section 102 of the Code. It is further stated that the respondents 5 to 9 have no authority to act upon the letters issued by the 4th respondent and include his properties in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act of 1908’). The procedure envisaged under Section 22-A of the Act of 1908 has not been followed for placing the subject properties under the list of prohibited properties, as such, same is illegal and arbitrary.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is an admitted fact that a case in Cr.No.115/2015 under Sections 420, 406, 477(A), 464, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120(B) of Indian penal Code has been registered against the petitioners. During the course of investigation, the 4th respondent-Inspector of Police, being investigating officer, wrote letters to the respondents-Sub-Registrars of different areas in the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, where the properties of the petitio
(1) Inspector of Police is not an ‘authority’ prescribed in Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908 for preparation of list of properties to be communicated to registering authorities for incorporatin....
The Sub-Registrar must register documents presented for registration unless legally prohibited, following the Registration Act's provisions.
Police lack authority to prevent registration of documents; they must seek court orders for property attachment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal for registration of properties based on defective notifications under Section 22-A of the Registration Act was illegal, arbitrary,....
The court established that proper notifications and adherence to guidelines are essential for enforcing prohibitions on property registration under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act.
The court ruled that land cannot be classified as prohibited under Section 22-A without proper Gazette notification, allowing registration of sale deeds.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.