IMPORTANT POINT
The Sub-Registrar must register documents presented for registration unless legally prohibited, following the Registration Act's provisions.

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents No.1 and 3 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents No.2, 4 and 5. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the threshold.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings dated 15.03.2021 basing upon which the 5th respondent vide order dated 25.01.2024 refused to register the Sale deed presented by the petitioner with respect to property bearing Flat No.202 in Second Floor of Murugan Enclave on Plot No.676 in Sy.Nos.100, 101 & 105 situated at Quthbullapur village and Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District (hereinafter will be referred to as ‘the subject property’) on the ground that the criminal case is pending against the petitioners vendor upon the instructions of the 3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and direct the respondents to receive, register and release the document presented by the petitioner with respect to the subject property.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that his vendor one Shaik Ismail is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. On account of family necessity of the vendor of the petitioner had offered to sell the subject property to the petitioner. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner and his vendor mutually agreed for execution of sale deed and presented the same before the 5th respondent, Sub-Registrar, for registration on 24.01.2024 after paying the necessary stamp duty and requisite registration fee. Thereafter, the 5th respondent, Sub-Registrar, kept the document pending for scrutiny vide Pending Document No.P.12/2024 and after scrutiny, the said document was refused for registration erroneously vide Intimation of Refusal No.6/2024 dated 25.01.2024 on the ground that the 3rd respondent, Station House Officer, Kamareddy Police Station, issued a letter dated 15.03.2021 that a case is registered against the petitioner’s vendor at Kamareddy P.S., and hence, directed the 5th respondent, Sub-Registrar, to stop all transactions on the subject property. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, Station House Officer, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that a complaint dated 16.06.2020 has been received by one Sunkar Aishwarya against the vendor of the petitioner in respect of money circulation business based on which, a case has been registered as FIR No.236/2020 under Sections 420, 506 of IPC; Section 5 TSPDFEA, Section 3, 4, 5 of PC & MCSB Act against the vendor of the petitioner and others and investigation has been taken up. It is further submitted that during the investigation, it is revealed that accused persons have been running money circulation business in the name of KEY NEXT INDIA REAL ESTATE FOODS & ADS BEERSHEEBA FOODS OFFICE and offered to innocent people and in turn cheated thousands of innocent people through depositing their money and they are not returning their money, accordingly executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the 3rd respondent has issued a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to the respondent No.5 with a request to stop all transactions with regard to the subject property as the said transaction has been entered with the amount of depositors.

5. On behalf of the respondents No.2, 4 and 5, no counter affidavit has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd respondent, Station House Officer, has no power or authority to address a letter to the 5th respondent, Sub Registrar, directing him not to entertain any registration in respect of the subject property and following the same by the 5th respondent, Sub-Registrar, is bad and illegal. It is further submitted that when the vendor admitted the execution, it is the duty of t