Refusal to register documents under the Registration Act must align with statutory provisions; unsupported refusals are deemed arbitrary.

ORDER :

K. Sarath, J.

These Writ Petitions are filed questioning the action of the respondent No.4/Joint Sub Registrar-I, RO(OB), Ranga Reddy District in refusing to register and release the Sale vide Deeds, which are kept pending as Pending Documents P.No.932/2022, 931/2022, 933/2022, 937/2022, 939/2022, 927/2022, 928/2022, 930/2022, 926/2022, 935/2022, 938/2022, 936/2022, 940/2022, 934/2022, 925/2022, all dated 26.08.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “subject documents”), presented by the petitioner, by issuing vide Intimation of Refusal Orders refusal order Nos.127/RO(OB)/2022, 126/RO(OB)/2022, 128/RO(OB)/2022, 132/RO(OB)/2022, 134/RO(OB)/2022, 122/RO(OB)/2022, 123/RO(OB)/2022, 125/RO(OB)/2022, 121/RO(OB)/2022, 130/RO(OB)/2022, 133/RO(OB)/2022, 131/RO(OB)/2022, 135/RO(OB)/2022, 129/RO(OB)/2022, 120/RO(OB)/2022, all dated 22.09.2022, respectively (hereinafter referred to as “impugned refusal orders”) as illegal and arbitrary and sought a direction to the respondent No.4 to register and release the subject sale deeds presented by the petitioner.

2. Since the petitioner and the respondents, subject lis property and the involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, all these Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.

3. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the Writ Petitions and Smt.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

4. The learned Counsel for the sole petitioner submits that originally one Late Ramakistaiah was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.21.27 guntas, in Sy.No.56, situated at Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. After death of said Ramakistaiah, his legal heirs namely Veeraiah, Rajamallaiah, Prabhakar and vide Venugopal partitioned the said property partition deed No.443/1963 and got mutated their names in the revenue records. Out of the total extent of land, the legal heirs of Ramakistaiah have sold part of land to various persons and now left only Ac.7.00 guntas.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that N.Venugopal, vendor No.1 of the petitioner is the only surviving son of late Rama Kistaiah and vendor Nos.2 and 3 of the petitioner are the sons of Venugopal. Nimmala Veeraiah, son of Late Ramakistaiah died intestate on 29.09.1992 leaving his only son Nimmala Srinivas Goud and the said Srinivas Goud also died intestate on 04.12.2011 leaving vendor Nos.4 and 5 of the petitioner as his legal heirs. Another son of Ramakistaiah, namely Nimmala Raja Mallaiah also died intestate on 19.09.1999 leaving behind his only son, namely Nimmala Dhan Raj and he also died on 23.11.2007 leaving behind his son, i.e. vendor No.6 of the petitioner as his legal heir.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the vendors of the petitioner, due to their personal necessities have offered to sell the property to the petitioner in different parts with specific boundaries and accordingly, the vendors of the petitioner have executed different sale deeds and presented the same before the respondent No.4 for registration, but he refused to register the said documents on the ground of C&G Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 26.08.2020 and 29.12.2020 and Memo No.G3/3247/2018 dated 01.05.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 and Intimation of Refusal Orders respectively dated 22.09.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petitions are filed.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as se