Telangana High Court
Karra Venkanna vs The State Of Telangana on 15 February, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.3342 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:-
"to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in refusing to receive the document of the 1st petitioner plot bearing No.19, Sy No.65, admeasuring 242 sq.yards, 2nd petitioner plot bearing No.643, Sy No.126, admeasuring 200 sq.yards, the 3rd petitioner plot No.15, Sy No.143, admeasuring 200 sq.yards and the 4th petitioner plot No.8, Sy No.79/C and 79/D, admeasuring 236.38 sq yards, situated at Rekurthy Village of Kothapally Mandal of Karimnagar District, without assigning reasons as the same is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to receive register and release the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid property."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the owner of the plot bearing No.19, Sy No.65, admeasuring 242 sq.yards, the petitioner No.2 is the owner of the plot bearing No.643, Sy No.126, admeasuring 200 sq.yards, petitioner No.3 is the owner of the plot No.15, Sy No.143, admeasuring 200 sq.yards and the petitioner No.4 is the owner of the plot No.8, Sy No.79/C and 79/D, admeasuring 236.38 sq.yards, 2 situated at Rekurthy Village of Kothapally Mandal of Karimnagar District, having acquired the same through Doc.No.1179/2021 dated 03.02.2021, Doc.No.9682/2006 dated 15.05.2006, Doc.No.6827/2001 dated 23.11.2001 and Doc.No.506/2005 dated 17.01.2005, respectively. It is further submitted that petitioners with an intention to sell the subject property, approached respondent No.3 for registration of the subject property in favour of the prospective purchaser. However respondent No.3, refused to entertain the the registration of the subject properties, without assigning any reason. Learned counsel further submitted that it is the duty of the respondent No.3 to register, receive and release the documents pertaining to the subject property and if respondent No.3 is not registering the document, reasons for refusal has to be assigned to the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the order passed in W.P.No.44223 of 2018 and batch dated 22.03.2022, the Paragraphs Nos.15, 16 and 17 are extracted hereunder under:-
"15. This Court agrees with the contention of Mr.Srinivasa Rao Putluri, learned counsel. The said note dated 28.07.2018 was merely issued as a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Gangadhara, instructing to watch in respect of Survey Numbers appended thereto and restrain all registrations pertaining to those survey numbers until they are entered into list of prohibited properties in CCA Module. A notification as required under Section -22A (e) was not issued. Further, the said note dated 28.07.2018 does not specify any reasons as to why the documents should not be registered in terms of Section -71 of the Act, 1908 and Rule- 58 of the Rules, Therefore, the said note dated 28.07.2018 is set aside.
16. Considering the entire facts and also in view of the above discussion, more particularly, the fact that the land in the subject writ 3 petitions is not covered by the land in the batch of writ petitions of 2003 and also considering the memo dated 18.11.2021 filed by Mr. G.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.6, these writ petitions are disposed of. As per Rule - 58 of the Rules, it is relevant to note that the Registering Authorities have no right to enquire about the validity of a document. It is also relevant to note that mere registration of a document will not entitle the petitioner to claim right over the subject property as it is only conveyance of property and it will not create any right. The writ petitions, in which the Registering Authorities have already entertained the documents and released the same on completion of registration formalities, are disposed of in terms of interim orders granted by this court in the subject writ petitions. The Registering Authorities are directed to receive the documents produced by the petitioners and complete the registration formalities, if the same are otherwise in order. If the Registering Authorities refuse to register the documents, he/she has to specifically assign reasons in terms of Section - 71 of the Act. 1908.
17. With the above said directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of. However there shall be no order as to costs."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners pray this Court to pass similar order as passed in W.P.No.44223 of 2018 and batch dated 22.03.2022.
6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submits that petitioners has neither submitted any document before the Registering Authority, nor had paid any challan for registration of the subject property. Further the learned Government Pleader has fairly stated that if the petitioners approaches the Respondent Authority for registration of the subject property, the Respondent Authority will receive and process the documents, subject to the petitioners complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899 and if the same is not complying, the Registering Authority will pass refusal order by following section 71 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. 4
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners would follow the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act 1899, before presenting the documents for registration of the subject property and pray this Court to grant liberty to the petitioners to submit the documents for registration of the subject property and further pray this Court to direct the Registering Authority to receive, register and release the documents sought to be presented by the petitioners.
8. It is noticed that while dealing with the similar issue, this Court in Deverneni Linga Rao Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli 1, order dated 19.08.1999, passed a detailed order and the relevant paragraphs of the above order are extracted hereunder:
"5.In my considered view, the aforesaid submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is well founded. The petitioners did not produce any documentary proof in support of their averment that they have presented the sale deeds to the respondent for registration, but he has refused to register the same. They could not even mention the date on which they had approached the respondent. Therefore, it is difficult to accept their statement, more so when that statement is specifically denied by the respondent in his counter. At this juncture it is appropriate to note that under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short "the Act") the Sub-Registrar is bound to record reasons for his refusal. The said section is as under:
"Sec. 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 1 1999 SCC Online AP 435:(1999) 3 AP LJ 204:(1999) 6 ALD144:(1999) 6 ALT 599 5 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.
(2) No Registering Officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered."
6. A perusal of the above provision clearly shows that the Sub- Registrar, whenever registration is refused except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, has to pass an order and record reasons for such order in Book No.2. If the person presenting the document applies, he should also furnish a copy of the reasons so recorded by him without payment and unnecessary delay.
7. Admittedly, the petitioners herein did not make any application asking for a copy of the reasons for refusal. In these circumstances, it is difficult to infer that the respondent has refused to register the sale deeds. But the learned Counsel for the petitioners-Sri I.Aga Reddy - forcefully urged, relying upon the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in S.Nagi Reddy v. Joint Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Tirupati,1999(4)ALD81:1999(4)ALT556, that the fact that the petitioners had approached this Court is sufficient to infer refusal by the respondent. In his submission, the petitioners would not have approached this Court straightaway without first approaching the respondent. I am not able to accept this contention in the absence of any documentary proof that the petitioners had approached the respondent and presented the documents for registration. Mere fact that the petitioners have approached this Court is not sufficient to infer refusal by the respondent. Further, their conduct in not making even an application, as contemplated under Section 71 of the Act, excludes any such inference. The decision in S.Nagi Reddy's case (supra) will not lend any support to the petitioners. No principle is laid down by the learned single Judge in that decision. Considering the facts and circumstances of that case, the learned Judge inferred refusal and issued certain directions. The facts of this case are different. The petitioners herein could not even state the date on which they have approached the respondent. Further, Section 71 of the Act was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. 8. The well established Rule, subject to certain exceptions, is that the applicant for mandamus must show by evidence, that he made a demand calling 6 upon the concerned authority to perform his public duty and that was met with refusal either bywords or by conduct Applying this salutary rule, the Apex Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd Etc., v.- Union of India (1974)2 SCC 630 : AIR 1975 SC 460, held (at Para 24 of the report) thus :
"..... The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd edition, Vol.13, P.106):
'As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal".
8. From the aforementioned facts and circumstances it is clear that the petitioners could not and did not show that they made a demand to the respondent and that was met with refusal. Therefore, it is not possible to issue the declaration sought for or the consequential direction commanding the respondent herein to register the sale deeds proposed to be executed by the petitioners in favour of their purchasers. This view of mine gains full support from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in D. Ratnasundari Devi v. Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling,1993(2)ALT 428.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed, but without costs. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from presenting the sale deeds for registration before the respondent. In such an event, I am sure, the respondent will immediately discharge his statutory duties mentioned in Part XI of the Act and consider registerability of the sale deeds. I am also sure that in case the registration is refused, he will certainly record the reasons as enjoined by Section 71 of the Act and furnish a copy thereof, if the petitioners apply for the same.
7
9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the judicial pronouncement passed by this Court in Deverneni Linga Rao Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli (Cited supra), this Court deems its fit to grant liberty to the petitioners to present the documents for registration of the subject property before the Registering Authority. In such an event, the Registering Authority are directed to immediately discharge his statutory duties mentioned in Part XI of the Act and consider registerability of the subject documents, subject to the petitioners complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899. However, if the said documents cannot be registered for any reasons, the Registering Authority shall record the reasons by following Section 71 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and communicate the same to the petitioners.
10. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_________________________________ JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 15.02.2024.
SU