IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that registration authorities must comply with court orders and cannot refuse registration based on previously set aside grounds.

ORDER :

Since the issue raised in all these twenty four (24) writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, WP No.16836 of 2024 is taken as a lead matter.

3. The common grievance in these writ petitions is that the Sub-Registrar, Pedda Amberpet, Ranga Reddy District i.e., respondent No.3 is refusing to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioners herein with respect to the subject property pertaining to the jurisdiction of Pedda Amberpet, Ranga Reddy District and had kept all the documents pending which is arbitrary illegal and violative of Article 14, 16, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India.

4. Since the rejection is common in all these writ petitions, WP No.16836 of 2024 is taken up as the lead matter in which the brief facts are that the petitioner purchased the land bearing Plot No.89, admeasuring 167 Sq.Yard or its equivalent to 139.61 Sq.mts. in Survey No.265(Part) situated at Pedda Amberpet Village, Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal vide registered sale deed, dated 04.04.2006, bearing No.8234 of 2006, registered at SRO Pedda Amberpet. The petitioner with an intention to sell the subject property submitted draft sale deed, before respondent No.3 on 27.05.2024 for registration, after paying the requisite stamp duty. However, the respondent No.3 has refused to register the documents and the same was informed to the petitioner by respondent No.3, vide refusal order No.134/2024, dated 10.06.2024 stating that the subject property is prohibited in view of the orders dated 23.08.2014 in case No.F1/441/2009 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. It is submitted that in terms of the orders dated 17.08.2017 passed in WP No.39329 of 2014 and WP No.24820 of 2015 by this Court, the status quo with regard to the question of property shall be maintained till the matter is decided by the RDO. In the backdrop of the said circumstances, the registration of pending Document No.P.84 of 2024 of SRO Padda Amberpet styled as sale deed was refused.

5. It is submitted that in pursuance to the order, dated 17.08.2017, in Case No.J/4088-7/2014, the Revenue Divisional Officer & Inam Tribunal, Ibrahimpatnam Division, Ranga Reddy District, vide order dated 23.05.2024, rejected the claim of the petitioner therein for issuance of Occupancy Right Certificate to them under Section-5 of AP (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. It is further submitted that since the RDO order, dated 23.05.2024 had rejected the claim of the petitioner therein, as such, there should not be any embargo on the Registering Authority to register the subject document. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondent No.3 for registration, however the respondent No.3 had categorically stated that unless there is a Court order, the subject document will not be entertained for registration and had passed the refusal order. Learned counsel submits that as on date, there is no stay order/injunction order or any Court order restraining the registering authorities to register the subject documents and inspite of that, the respondent No.3 is refusing to register the subject documents and insisting for court order for the purpose of registration. Questioning the same, all these present writ petitions are filed.

COURT PROCEEDINGS:

6. This Court on 02.07.2024 and 05.07.2024 passed the following orders:

On 02.07.2024

“Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and same they are being heard together.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in these 23 writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the refusal orders, wherein the subject documents were refused for registration and was assigned Pending document Numbers, based on the reason that this Court vide order 23.12.2014 in W.P.M.P.No.49345 of 2014 in W.P.No.39329 of 2014, directed to maintain status quo in all aspects.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court vide common order dated 17.08.2017 has dismissed th