IMPORTANT POINT
A party seeking registration must present a duly executed document and cannot claim refusal without evidence of proper presentation.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“to declare the action of the 3rd respondent i.e., The Sub Registrar, Quthbullapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, in refusing to receive and register the Sale Deed in respect of all that the House bearing No. 2-67/U-49 (PTIN No. 1152402468), on Plot No. U-49, of Mahadevapuram Residential Project, Phase- III, admeasuring 200 Sq.Yards, having plinth area of 100 Sq.Feet of A.C.C in Sy Nos. 329/4 and 329/5, situated at Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Under GHMC Circle, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, on the ground that the survey number where the Petitioners property is situated i.e., Sy No. 329 is notified under as prohibited property under section 22-A of Registration Act, 1 Ranga Reddy District Gazette Notification R.R No. 83 communicated by Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy vide File No. E5/4730/2013/Quthbullapur/Nizampet dated 25.09.2013, 2 Deputy Collector and Tahasildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, File No. B/583/2012 dated 17.02.2012 and 3 Gazette Notification No. 134 dated 10.03.2005 and G.O.Ms.No. 292, Revenue (Registration.I), 9th March 2005 communicated by Commissioner and Inspector General (R and S), Hyderabad vide File No. G1/4661/2005 Dt 02.07.2005 is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and also in violation of Registration Act, 1908, besides in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the 3rd respondent herein to receive and register the Sale Deed in respect of all that the House bearing No. 2-67/U-49 (PTIN No. 1152402468), on Plot No. U-49, of Mahadevapuram Residential Project, Phase-III, admeasuring 200 Sq.Yards, having plinth area of 100 Sq.Feet of A.C.C in Sy Nos. 329/4 and 329/5, situated at Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Under GHMC Circle, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, on the ground that the survey number where the Petitioners property is situated i.e., Sy No. 329 is notified under as prohibited property under section 22A of Registration Act, 1 Ranga Reddy District Gazette Notification R.R No. 83 communicated by Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy vide File No. E5/4730/2013/Quthbullapur/Nizampet dated 25.09.2013, 2 Deputy Collector and Tahasildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, File No. B/583/2012 dated 17.02.2012 and 3 Gazette Notification No. 134 dated 10.03.2005 and G.O.Ms.No. 292, Revenue (Registration.I), 9th March 2005 communicated by Commissioner and Inspector General (R and S), Hyderabad vide File No. G1/4661/2005 Dt 02.07.2005.”

2. Petitioner is the buyer and his case is that his vendor had purchased the House bearing No. 2-67/U-49, (PTIN No. 1152402468), on Plot No. U-49, of Mahadevapuram Residential Project, Phase-III, admeasuring 200 Sq.Yards, having plinth area of 100 Sq.Feet of A.C.C in Sy Nos. 329/4 and 329/5, situated at Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Under GHMC Circle, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, through registered sale deed dated 23.11.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner’s vendor executed an Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of one Smt.S.Sunanda, the same was registered vide AGPA dated 29.07.2008. The further case is that the parties with an intention to sell the subject property to the petitioner executed the sale deed and approached the registering authority with the subject document. However, the registering authority orally refused to register the subject document. Aggrieved by the same present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 3 is orally refusing to entertain the subject document on the ground that the subject property is prohibited vide District Gazette Notifications R.R.No. 83 dated 25.09.2013. It is further submitted that this Court vide order dated 22.03.2024 in W.P.No. 9645 of 2021 and Batch, has already set aside the aforesaid notification dated 25.09.2013.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent authorities are duty bo