ORDER :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged Lr.No.45/TP/NMC/2019 dt.01.11.2019 sent by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Nizampet to the Sub-Registrar, Quthbullapur, Ranga Reddy District (2nd respondent) directing the latter not to register the alleged unauthorized floors which are constructed more than 2 floors as per the Annexure attached thereto within the limits of Nizampet Municipal Corporation (1st respondent) and the consequential action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to receive, register and release a sale deed presented by petitioner relating to floor No.302 in the third floor of ‘Pearl Heights’ with built up of 1090 sq.ft (including common areas and car parking), along with an undivided share of land admeasuring 24 sq. yds (out of 800 sq yds) constructed on plot Nos.116, 117, 132 and 133 in Sy.No.491/A of Bachupally village and Gram Panchayat, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

Case of the petitioner

2. According to the petitioner, the vendor of the petitioner had applied for building permission from the then Bachupally Gram Panchayat for construction of Ground + 2 floors and such permission was accorded on 12.02.2019, and thereafter construction of residential apartments was commenced by petitioner’s vendor under the name and style ‘Pearls Heights’ and the same was completed and apartments were sold to respective vendees.

3. Petitioner contended that on the assurance given by the then Gram Panchayat for regularization, petitioner’s vendor had constructed 3rd and 4th floors in addition to 1st and 2nd floor covered by the building permission.

4. Thereafter the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation came into existence and all the records of the Bachupally Gram Panchayat stood transferred to the 1st respondent.

5. Petitioner contended that when he presented the sale deed executed in his favour by his vendor before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent refused to receive, register and release the same on the ground that the 1st respondent addressed a letter bearing No.45/TP/NMC/2019 dt.01.11.2019 intimating the 2nd respondent not to register any unauthorized floors without production of sanctioned plan approved by it. It is also stated that 2nd respondent gave an additional reason that the subject property overlaps into Hafeezpet land which is subject matter of C.S.No.14 of 958.

6. Petitioner contends that 2nd respondent is bound to receive the document presented before him for registration, scrutinize it and register it, if there are no legal impediments under Registration Act, 1908 for registration of the documents, that 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to issue any direction to the 2nd respondent asking him not receive any document presented for registration, and also the 2nd respondent, on the basis of the said letter, cannot refuse to register the same. It was also stated that the grounds taken by 2nd respondent for refusing to register the document are not covered by Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and the action of the 2nd respondent is illegal.

7. Further, it is contended that the Registration Act, 1908 has not been amended pursuant to Section 178(3) of the Telangana Municipality Act, 2019 and the 1st respondent cannot get any jurisdiction to issue such letters to the 2nd respondent.

8. It is also contended that the State Government’s claim in respect of the land in Hafeezpet had been negatived by this Court in several cases and this Court had held that said lands are private lands; even other wise, the lands in Bachupally area like the subject land have no connection with Hafeezpet village or that any other lands covered by C.S.No.14 of 1958; and on a mere apprehension of overlapping of survey numbers, the 2nd respondent cannot treat the subject property as part and parcel of the land covered under C.S.No.14 of 1958.

9. Petitioner has also placed on record Memo No.G2/257/19 dt.26.08.2020 of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration a