Back
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
Muppu Kavya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana – Respondent
W.P.Nos.16799, 16800, 16802, 16803, 16804, 16805, 16806, 16808, 16812, 16814, 16818, 16821, 16824, 16825, 16829, 16831, 16833, 16834, 16835, 16836, 16837, 16848, 16856 and 17765 of 2024
[Registration] - [Writ Petitions against Refusal of Document Registration] - [Registration Act, 1908; Indian Stamp Act, 1899; Article 14, 16, 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India] - [The court addressed the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register sale deeds, emphasizing the need for compliance with previous court orders and statutory provisions, ultimately directing the registration of documents without requiring further court orders, thereby reinforcing citizens' rights under the Constitution.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register their sale deeds, citing arbitrary actions and violations of constitutional rights, despite having paid the necessary stamp duty and having no pending court orders against registration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register the documents was unjustified, as it relied on outdated prohibitory orders and failed to comply with previous court directives, leading to unnecessary litigation and hardship for the petitioners.
Issues: Whether the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register the sale deeds was lawful given the absence of any current prohibitory orders or court injunctions against registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Sub-Registrar must register documents presented for registration unless there are valid, current legal grounds for refusal, and reiterated that previous court orders must be adhered to without requiring new court directives.
Final Decision: The refusal orders were set aside, and the Sub-Registrar was directed to register the pending documents.
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
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
