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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 32371

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
Sri Anil Kapatkar S/o Somnath Rao Kapatkar – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 27461/2013



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

* * * *

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.27461 of 2013

DATE: 23.12.2025

Between

Sri Anil Kapatkar and 5 others

…Petitioners

AND

The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Represented by its Principal Secretary and 2 others

…Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to

declare the action of the respondent No.3 in keeping the

documents No.P-43/2012 and P-44/2012 dated 25.01.2012 as

pending, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the

respondent No.3 to release the said documents after due

registration to the petitioners.

2.

The case of the petitioners is that they are the absolute

owners and possessors of vast extents of land in Sy.Nos.691, 692,

693, 699, 701, 703 to 707 of Chilkoor Village, Moinabad Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District; and that petitioner Nos.1 to 4 entered into

##PAGE2##

2

agreement of sale-cum-GPA vide document No.9484 of 2006 and

petitioner No.5 entered into agreement of sale-cum-GPA vide

Document No.8484 of 2006 with M/s. West Side Estates Private

Limited.

3.

It is further submitted that the agreement of sale-cum-GPA

holders divided the land into several plots and sold the same from

2006 onwards; that the respondents were registering the said

documents without any objection till January, 2012; and that on

25.01.2012, the subject documents pertaining to Plot Nos.21-part

and 28 were presented for registration before the respondent

No.3 and they were given pending Nos.P-43 and P-44, without

assigning any reason. It is also submitted that in spite of several

representations, the respondents neither replied nor released the

documents kept pending since January, 2012 onwards. Hence,

this Writ Petition.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

respondents kept the documents pending presented for

registration since the year 2012 without assigning any reason,

despite several representations. In support of his contention, he

relied upon Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short,

‘the Act’).

##PAGE3##

3

5.

Section 71 of the Act specifies that:

“71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded – (1) Every

Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the

ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within

his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his

reasons for such order in his Book No.2 and endorse the words

“registration refused” on the document: and, on application made

by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall,

without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the

reasons so recorded.”

6.

Admittedly, the petitioners approached the respondents by

way representations dated 20.03.2012, 19.04.2012, 11.05.2012,

01.12.2012, 20.03.2013 and 25.07.2013, but the respondents did

not act upon them and still kept the subject documents pending.

7.

From a plain reading of Section 71 of the Act, it is evident

that without unnecessary delay, the Sub-Registrar is under

obligation to pass a reasoned order recording the grounds for

refusal in accordance with law. The provision further mandates

that a copy of such reasoned order shall be furnished to the

person who made the application.

8.

In view of the aforesaid provision and the legal obligation

cast upon the respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to

grant liberty to the petitioners to approach the authorities

concerned by way of a fresh representation within a week from

##PAGE4##

4

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such

representation, the respondents are directed to duly consider the

same and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and

communicate the same to he petitioners, within a period of four

weeks thereafter.

9.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed. No order as to

costs.

10.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

Date: 23.12.2025

GJ

##PAGE5##

5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.27461 of 2013

DATE:23.12.2025

GJ

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