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
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
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.
A writ of mandamus cannot be issued without evidence of a demand for registration and subsequent refusal; misleading statements in affidavits can lead to dismissal.
A writ of mandamus requires evidence of a demand for public duty performance and refusal; without this, the petition cannot succeed.
A petitioner must comply with statutory requirements for document registration, and failure to provide evidence of proper presentation can lead to dismissal of the writ petition.
A party must present documents for registration as per the Registration Act, and failure to do so negates claims of wrongful refusal.
A petitioner must comply with mandatory registration procedures, including presenting executed documents, to seek relief in writ jurisdiction.
A writ of mandamus cannot be issued unless there is a clear demand for action by the authority and a refusal to perform a mandatory duty, which was not established in this case.
The Registering Officer must verify original documents for property registration to prevent fraud, and parties claiming rights must establish their claims before a competent court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.