Point of Law : Refusal of registration of property - Once civil litigation is pending and an injunction order is granted preventing alienation, no alienation can take place.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:

“to issue a Writ order or direction especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not registering the Sale Deed presented to him through Dharani Portal by the petitioners for the agricultural property admeasuring an extent of Acres 5.30 guntas comprised in Survey No.528/Ruu and 528A situated at Bibinagar Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, having TD-cum-Pass Book No.T30060090496, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (Act No.9 of 2020) and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard A.P.Suresh, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri T.V. Kalyan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4.

3. First petitioner claims that he is the owner and in possession of agricultural land to an extent of Acs.5.30 guntas in Sy.No.528/Ruu, and 528A of Bibinagar Village and mandal in Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri district. He was issued passbook-cum-title deed. He offered to sell this land to the second petitioner for valuable sale consideration and sale deed was executed on 12.11.2020. In compliance of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Act, 1908), and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act, 1899), petitioners applied through DHARANI web portal for registration of the sale deed. The parties were asked to appear on 27.01.2021 at 12.30 p.m. Accordingly, petitioners appeared and submitted all the documents in support of the claim of ownership by the 1st petitioner. However, the Tahsildar refused to register the document without assigning reasons. Seeking to declare the action of the Tahsildar in not registering the sale deed presented by the petitioners as illegal and contrary to Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (Act 9 of 2020), this writ petition is filed.

4. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the property is a private property and is not included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act, 1908. There is no prohibition on dealing with the property by any statutory provisions. That being so, the Tahsildar cannot refuse to register the document submitted before him in compliance with all the statutory formalities.

5. Fourth respondent has a different story to the entire claim of the petitioners.

5.1. According to the 4th respondent, Peraboina Venkataiah, Peraboina Swamy and Peraboina Chandravasu are the owners of the agricultural land to an extent of Acs.15.26¼ guntas in different survey numbers. They agreed to sell the land to the 4th respondent. An agreement of sale was executed on 16.05.1994 after receiving full sale consideration. They have also executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri N.Gopal Naidu, in his capacity as Director of 4th respondent-company, the father of first petitioner. It appears, Mr. Gopal Naidu resigned as Director of 4th respondent-company. Alleging that he was trying to alienate the company properties, the 4th respondent-company instituted O.S.No.9 of 2004 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir praying to grant perpetual injunction restraining N.Gopal Naidu from alienating, transferring or creating any charge or mortgage etc. over company’s properties. On 30.04.2005 the Senior Civil Judge granted injunction order restraining N.Gopal Naidu from alienating, transferring, mortgaging, creating any charge or lien over petition ‘A’ to ‘D’ schedule lands till the disposal of the suit. The list in these schedules also contains the land in issue in this writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, N.Gopal Naidu filed C.M.A.No.543 of 2005 in this Court. By order dated 17.06.2011, the said C.M.A., was dismissed, affirming the vie