Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 41963

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Anil Kumar Jukanti, J
Smt. P. Swarnalatha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and 2 others – Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos.4475, 4480, 4494, 4502, 4542, 5072, 3681, 3998, 5080, 5091, 5118, 5145, 5399, 5415, 5420, 5429, 5435, 5436, 5926, 6234, 6238, 5441, 5446, 6771, 6772, 6779, 6781, 8331, 8800 of 2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.Venkateswara Rao
For the Respondents: Dara Haritha Kiran

A notification providing an opportunity for public objections does not constitute a final prohibitory order. Registering authorities cannot rely on such preliminary documents to refuse the registration of deeds, as the power to prohibit registration must be exercised through legally finalized notifications under the relevant enabling statute.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 22-A - Refusal of registration of documents - Prohibition of registration on the basis of a draft or non-finalized notification - A notification calling for objections cannot be treated as a final notification prohibiting registration under the Act. (Paras 51, 52, 53)

(B) Registration of documents - Scope of power - Authorities cannot rely on a non-final notification or letters based on such notifications to refuse registration - The registering authority is obligated to receive and process documents unless there is a valid notification issued under the relevant statutory provisions. (Paras 53, 56, 58)

(C) Administrative Law - Doctrine of non-improvability - Principles settled by the Apex Court regarding the validity of administrative orders hold that the content of an order cannot be improved upon at a later stage through submissions or affidavits; it must be judged by the reasons stated within the order itself. (Paras 37, 43)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought registration of Various property documents before the registering authority, which were kept pending. The refusal was based on communications from local revenue authorities and a district-level administrative notification, which designated the subject lands as prohibited from registration. The petitioners challenged these refusal orders, citing prior judicial pronouncements where identical notifications were found insufficient for denying registration under the relevant Act.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the reliance on a notification that merely invites objections and suggestions is legally unsustainable for the purpose of prohibiting the registration of property documents. The authorities lacked the requisite finality in their notifications to invoke the restrictive powers under the registration law.

Issues: Whether the registering authority was justified in refusing to register documents based on a district-level collector's notification inviting objections and a local revenue department's letter classifying the land as state property.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification that is intended to invite public objections is not a final prohibitory order under the relevant statutory framework. Consequently, such records cannot serve as a legal basis to compel the refusal of registration of deeds. The registering authority must act only upon notifications that have attained legal finality.

Result: Writ Petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. prayer for mandamus against refusal to register land deeds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
2. refusal to register based on prohibited property list notifications. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 47 , 48 , 49)
3. validity of administrative refusals for registration under section 22-a. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
4. draft notifications lack statutory basis for registration refusal. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
5. prohibited lists can be acted upon prospectively, not retrospectively. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)

W.P.No.4475 of 2021 is filed with the following prayer:

“… to issue a an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the order of the Second Respondent in proceedings bearing No.576/G1/2020 dated 16/06/2020 confirming the Order of the Third Respondent in Proceedings bearing No.85 of 2019 dated 19/11/2019, in respect of the Plot No.65 in Survey Nos.36/AA/11, situated at Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, acting on the alleged notification dated 26/09/2013 in File No.E5/4733/2013/Serilingampally/Gopanpally, said to have been issued by the District Collector and the letter bearing No.B/322/2007, dated 08/09/2011 stated to have been issued by the Tahsildar and Deputy Collector, Serilingampally Mandal, in a selective manner as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to law, suffers from jurisdictional errors and violative of the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles l4 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondents to receive and register the Sale Deed dated 10/07/2019, bearing Pending Document No. P455/19 executed in favour of the petitioner and pass…”

2. W.P.No.4480 of 2021 is filed with the following prayer:

“…to issue a an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the order of the Second Respondent in proceedings bearing No.18193/G1/2019 dated 17/06/2020 confirming the Order of the Third Respondent in Proceedings bearing No.99 of 2019 dated 19/11/2019, in respect of the Plot No.303 in Survey Nos.36/AA/8, situated at Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, acting on the alleged notification dated 26/09/2013 in File No.E5/4733/2013/Serilingampally/Gopanpally, said to have been issued by the District Collector and the letter bearing No.B/322/2007, dated 08/09/2011 stated to have been issued by the Tahsildar and Deputy Collector, Serilingampally Mandal, in a selective manner as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to law, suffers from jurisdictional errors and violative of the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondents to receive and register the Agreement of Sale-Cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 25/07/2019, bearing Pending Document No.P504/2019 executed in favour of the petitioner and pass…”

3. W.P.No.4494 of 2021 is filed with the following prayer:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 41963

Cases Referred (2)