SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 2246

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.
Nidigonda Naresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana and others – Respondent
WP No.36649 of 2024
Decided On : 23-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. Sadanand
For the Respondent: H. Rakesh (AGP for Stamps & Registration); K. Jamali (SC)

A writ of mandamus cannot be issued without evidence of a demand for registration being met with refusal, and parties must follow the procedure outlined in the Registration Act.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 32 and 34 - Writ petition seeking registration of a sale deed - The petitioner claimed that the registration authorities arbitrarily refused to register the sale deed for a property, citing a waqf notification - The court found that the petitioner failed to present the required documents and did not follow the proper procedure for registration - The court emphasized that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued without evidence of a demand for registration being met with refusal - The petition was dismissed but allowed the petitioner to present the sale deed for registration following due procedure. (Paras 1, 11, 19)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court reiterated that parties must come with clean hands and disclose all material facts when invoking writ jurisdiction - Misleading statements or suppression of facts can lead to dismissal of the petition. (Paras 10, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner intended to purchase a flat and presented a sale deed for registration, which was orally refused by the Sub-Registrar. The petitioner claimed the refusal was arbitrary and illegal due to a prior court ruling against the waqf notification.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not follow the required procedure for registration and failed to provide evidence of a demand for registration being refused.

Issues: The main issues were whether the registration authorities acted arbitrarily in refusing the sale deed and whether the petitioner followed the proper procedure for registration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued without evidence of a demand being met with refusal, and emphasized the importance of following the procedure outlined in the Registration Act.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“to declare that the action of the respondent registration authorities in not entertaining and registering the sale deed which may he presented by the petitioner in respect of the flat bearing of Flat No.B-103, in First Floor bearing Municipal No 9-12/13/103, (PTI No.1197018379) name of the Project Daffodils Block No.B of Aakruthi Townshiop with built up area of 2300 Sft including common area and car parking area 100Sft along with proportionate undivided share of land admeasuring 81 Sq.Yds or 67.71 Sq Mtrs Out of total admeasuring 23304 Sq.Yds or 19482 Sq Mtrs constructed in Survey Nos.149 and 150 Situated at Boduppal Village under Boduppal Municipal Corporation Medipally Mandal MedchalMalkajgiri District S R O Uppal on the ground that the said property is part of the waqf gazette notification dated 09.02.1989 at Sl No.2746 is arbitrary and illegal since the said gazette notification was set aside by this court in 2002 3 ALT 439 B Gowra Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in 1 A No 1 of 2024 in W P No 19600 of 2024 dated 31 07 2024 and in W P No 27974 of 2024 dated 14 10 2024 and consequently direct the respondent registration authorities to entertain and register the above subject property”

2. Facts rising to file this writ petition are that the petitioner is intending to purchase the Flat No.B-103, in First Floor bearing Municipal No 9-12/13/103, (PTI No.1197018379) from respondent Nos.5 and 6, who claims to be owner of the subject property. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have purchased the subject land from Sri K.Pratap Reddy vide document No.5241/2012, dated 14.05.2012, registered at SRO Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. Accordingly, petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 prepared a sale deed and presented the same before respondent No.3 for registration. However, respondent No.3 orally refused to register the same. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authorities are duty bound to receive, register and release the subject document and in case of not registering, they shall assign reasons for refusal and pass orders accordingly. As such, it is prayed to direct the registering authority to register and release the subject document.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration placed instructions of respondent No.3, which reads as under:

“I submit that the petitioner has claimed that the 3rd Respondent, the Sub-Registrar, unjustly denied the registration of a property that his vendor lawfully acquired. While the petitioner asserts that he inquired about the status of the land, it is, in fact, evident that he never approached the 3rd respondent directly. Had he done so, the 3rd respondent would have advised him to present the sale deed by his vendor, along with the relevant stamp duty challan.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn attention of this Court to Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908, which reads as under:-

32. Persons to present documents for registration.—Except in the cases mentioned in 1 [sections 31, 88 and 89], every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration-office,—

(a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or

(b) by the representative or assign of such a person, or

(c) by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly authorized by power-of attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned.

34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.—(1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assign

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top