Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15487

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY,Tuhin Kumar Gedela
Manjeera Construction Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 4738/2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D Srinivas Prasad
For the Respondents: GP for Revenue (AP), M R K Chakravarthy

Registration of sale deeds for flats in a building constructed under a development agreement can be refused unless a registered supplementary agreement allocating shares between builder and land owners is executed.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, Article 226 - Registration Act, 1908 - Refusal of registration by Sub-Registrar - Appeal to District Registrar - Development Agreement - Requirement of registered supplementary agreement to allocate flats between builder and land owners - General Power of Attorney - Scope - Builder cannot sell flats to third parties without determination of respective shares and common area. (Paras 6-9)

Facts of the case:
A builder entered into a development agreement with land owners for construction of an apartment. Clause 2.4 of the agreement required execution of a registered supplementary agreement within 30 days of finalization of plans to allocate flats falling to each party's share. No such supplementary agreement was executed. The builder, relying on a General Power of Attorney, presented sale deeds for flats to purchasers before the Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar refused registration on the ground that shares of flats and common area were not determined. The District Registrar dismissed the appeal, confirming the refusal. The builder filed writ petitions challenging the orders.

Findings of Court:
The court held that as per Clause 2.4 of the development agreement, a registered supplementary agreement specifying the allocation of flats between the builder and land owners was mandatory. Without such allocation, the builder could not, under the General Power of Attorney, sell flats to third parties as it would create legal complications and affect purchasers' rights. The Sub-Registrar and District Registrar rightly refused registration. The court noted that even after filing writ petitions, no registered supplementary agreement was produced. However, if such an agreement was subsequently executed, the builder was at liberty to present the sale deeds again for registration. (Paras 7-11)

Issues: Whether the Sub-Registrar and District Registrar were justified in refusing registration of sale deeds for flats when no registered supplementary agreement allocating shares between builder and land owners had been executed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the requirement of a registered supplementary agreement to determine and allocate shares of flats between the builder and land owners is a precondition for the builder to sell flats to third parties. Without such allocation, the Sub-Registrar is justified in refusing registration. The impugned orders are sustainable and not liable to be set aside. However, if the defect is cured by subsequent execution of the supplementary agreement, the builder may present the deeds afresh. (Paras 8-11)

Result: Writ petitions dismissed, affirming the impugned orders. Liberty granted to present sale deeds for registration if a registered supplementary agreement has been executed in the meantime. No order as to costs.

APHC010080012020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3558]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NOs: 4724, 4737, 4738, 4739, 4741, 4779, 4782, 4785, 4789, 4791 AND 4799 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION NO: 4724 OF 2020 Between:

1. MANJEERA CONSTRUCTION LTD.,, A DULY INCORPORATED COMPANY, NO. 711, MANJEERA TRINITY CORPORATE, JNTU, HITECH CITY ROAD, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI G. YOGANAND, SIO LATE SRI G. CHENNAKESAVULU ...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR.

2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, PANTA KALUVA ROAD, MARUTI COLONY, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.

3. THE JOINT SUBREGISTRAR 627 RO OB, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, GANDHI NAGAR, NEAR TALUKA OFFICE, HANUMANPET, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 520 003.

4. MAGANTI SUBRAHMANYAM CHOWDRY, S/O MAGANTI MALLIKARJUNA RAO, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC- DOCTOR, R/O FLAT NO.5-6, D.NO. 59-8-7, VASUDHA APARTMENT, GAYATRINAGAR, VIJAYAWADA.

5. D MAGANTI ADARSH, S/O M.SUBRAHMANYAM CHOWDRY, AGED

36YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O FLAT NO. 5-6, D.NO. 59-8-7, VASUDHA APARTMENTS, GAYATHRINAGAR, VIJAYAWADA.

6. MAGANTI ANOOHYA, W/O VALIUM KRISHNA SAROSH, AGED 29 YEARS, OCC- SERVICE, TEMPORARY R/O APT. NO.206, 19, STATION ROAD, NEW BERNET, HERTFORD SHIRE, ENS, IQJ, UNITED KINGDOM, REP BY HER GPA HOLDER MR. MAGANTI ADARSH, SIO SUBRAMANYAM CHOWDRY, R/O FLAT NO. 5-6, D.NO.59-8-7, VASUDHA APARTMENTS, GAYATHRINAGAR, VIJAYAWADA

7. SONTI HEMANTH KUMAR, WO SRI SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O 1-35, WARD NO.1, MELLAMPUDI, TEDEPALLI MANDALAM, NUTAKKI, GUNTUR 522 303 ...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, order or any appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in refusing the registration of sale deed dated 21-6-2019 bearing P No.2987/2019 executed by the Petitioner and the Respondents 4 to 6 in favour of the Respondent No.7 by its 'Refusal Order' No.29/2019, dated 13-9-2019, and also the action of the Respondent No.2 in confirming the said Refusal Order passed by the Respondent No.3, by dismissing the appeal preferred by the Petitioner under Appeal No.8 of 2019, dated 4-1-2020, as arbitrary and illegal, and for further direction to direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to register the sale deed dated 21-6-2019 bearing P No.2987 of 2019 executed by the Petitioner and the Respondents 4, to 6 in favour of the Respondent No.7, and to release the same without any delay thereafter in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass interim orders suspending the order passed in Appeal No.8 of 2019, dated 4-1-2020 passed by the Respondent No.2 herein and also the Refusal Order No.2912019 dated 13-9-2019, passed by the Respondent No.3 in respect of the sale deed dated 21-06-2019 bearing P No.29871 2019, executed and presented by the Petitioner and; the Respondents 4 to 6 in favour of the Respondent No.7, and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to register the sale deed dated 21-6-2019 bearing P No.2987/2019 executed by the Petitioner and the Respondents 4 to 6 in favour of the Respondent No.7, pending disposal of the above said writ petition in the interest of justice, Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. D SRINIVAS PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):

2. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY WRIT PETITION NO: 4737 OF 2020 Between:

1. MANJEERA CONSTRUCTION LTD.,, A DULY INCORPORATED COMPANY, NO. 711, MANJEERA TRINITY CORPORATE, JN

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15487

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHCHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY,Tuhin Kumar GedelaManjeera Construction Ltd. – AppellantVersusThe State of Andhra Pradesh – RespondentWP 4738/2020

Registration of sale deeds for flats in a building constructed under a development agreement can be refused unless a registered supplementary agreement allocating shares between builder and land owners is executed.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY,Tuhin Kumar Gedela
Manjeera Construction Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 4738/2020