Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 68511

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 preliminary notification inviting public objections does not constitute a final prohibition under the law to restrict registration of property documents. Registering authorities cannot refuse registration based on draft or non-final communications, and must strictly follow established statutory procedures.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 22-A - Refusal of registration - Powers of registering authorities - The notification relied upon for refusing registration, which merely invited objections, cannot be treated as a final notification under Section 22-A(2) of the Act, and therefore does not prohibit the registration of documents. (Paras 51, 53, 56)

(B) Administrative Law - Doctrine of exhaustion of remedies - Rule against changing the purport of an order - Authorities cannot improve or alter the content of an order through subsequent counter-affidavits or communications; the validity of the order must be determined based on its original grounds and language. (Paras 37, 43, 45)

(C) Civil Procedure - Precedent - Reliance on past judgments - Where facts are in pari materia to a previously settled position of law concerning the same notification, the court is bound by its earlier decision to allow the registration of deeds subject to statutory compliance. (Paras 54, 55, 57)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, as purchasers of various plots, challenged the refusal by the registering authorities to receive and register their sale deeds and other conveyance documents. The authorities relied on a notification and a departmental letter to classify the lands as prohibited for registration, claiming the properties were government-owned. Petitioners argued the notification was preliminary and not in accordance with the law, citing earlier judicial decisions that declared similar notifications as not being final for the purposes of Section 22-A.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the notification invoked by the authorities was only a proposal inviting objections and lacked the character of a final prohibition under the relevant statute. The refusal of registration based on such a preliminary notification was found to be legally unsustainable. The court further clarified that while authorities are not precluded from acting within the framework of the law, the specific orders under challenge were legally flawed and set aside.

Issues: Whether the registering authorities were justified in refusing to receive and register documents based on a preliminary notification and whether such notification constitutes a valid prohibition under the applicable law.

Ratio Decidendi: A preliminary notification inviting objections does not constitute a valid prohibition under the statute to restrict the registration of property documents. Registering authorities must act strictly within the parameters of the law and cannot rely on documents that are not final or validly issued to prevent the exercise of legal rights by property owners.

Result: Writ Petitions are allowed.

Table of Content
1. the grievance pertains to property registration refusal based on historical administrative directives. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
2. arguments regarding the validity of administrative notifications and retrospective effect of prohibited property lists. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
3. a draft notification does not constitute a valid final prohibition order for property registration. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
4. adherence to established judicial precedent regarding similar notifications in pari materia. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
5. registration refusal must strictly conform to the registration act and established full bench guidelines. (Para 58 , 59)
6. setting aside improper orders without prejudice to future lawful actions by authorities. (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) 68511

Cases Referred (2)